跨国公司子公司决策自主权研究
|
摘要
在网络观点下，跨国公司理论的研究焦点已经不再是母公司，网络的节点即子公司的功能逐渐受到重视，子公司不再是母公司命令的被动接受者，而成为跨国公司中的积极贡献者。本研究关注的焦点是子公司的决策自主权。因为子公司的决策自主权对跨国公司的整体经营绩效及组织适应性都有显著的影响。子公司的决策自主权显示出子公司独立运作的能力，本研究将其定义为母公司授权给子公司自行决策的程度。
以往相关文献对子公司决策自主权的探讨，多是关于对子公司决策自主权有影响的因素，或协调控制机制对子公司决策自主权的影响，或以决策自主权为分析层面对子公司的角色进行分类，对子公司决策自主权的内涵和特性涉及较少。在对跨国公司子公司决策自主权的实证研究中，也多集中在研究跨国公司在发达国家的子公司，对跨国公司在发展中国家子公司的相关行为关注较少。
中国作为发展中国家，经济经过二十多年的发展，取得了举世瞩目的成就。跨国公司为抢占中国市场，纷纷在中国设立子公司，这些跨国公司在华子公司的行为是很值得探讨的。由此，本研究以跨国公司在华子公司为实证研究主体，期望能对跨国公司在发展中国家子公司的相关行为有所了解；同时也希望本研究能通过对子公司决策自主权自身发展的理论探讨和分析，在一定程度上弥补子公司决策自主权理论研究的不足。
本研究首先探讨的是跨国公司子公司决策自主权的演进机制。根据子公司决策权限的消长，将子公司决策自主权划分为获得、发展和丧失三个生命阶段；根据能力和授权的变化组合，将子公司决策自主权的发展演变归纳为母公司驱动决策自主权扩大型、子公司驱动决策自主权强化型、子公司驱动决策自主权扩大型、子公司驱动决策自主权衰减型以及母公司驱动决策自主权衰减型五种模式并分别予以分析；以子公司所存在的跨国公司网络为边界，将子公司决策自主权演变的动因机制区分为母公司战略驱动以及子公司能力提升等内部动因机制和东道国环境不确定性等外部动因机制；跨国公司子公司的生命周期较一般企业更为复杂，由此本研究进一步分析了子公司的决策自主权在其生命周期的各个阶段表现出的不同特点。
本研究关注的另一个议题是跨国公司子公司决策自主权的影响因素。本研究以代理理论、交易成本理论、资源基础理论、资源依赖理论以及网络理论为理论依据，根据跨国公司在华子公司的特点，构建起影响子公司决策自主权影响因素的理论研究框架，包括子公司自身的特质、母-子公司关系特质、子公司在跨国公司内部网络中的特质以及子公司在跨国公司外部网络中的特质。
根据这一理论框架，本研究以跨国公司在华子公司为研究对象进行了实证分析。实证结果显示，子公司的成立年数、子公司相对母公司的资源和能力水平、子公司在地主国价值链活动的完整程度、子公司经理人的相关国际事务经验、母公司对子公司的程序公正性程度、母子公司的共享价值程度、子公司在跨国公司网络中的中心性程度、子公司的地区响应程度以及子公司与当地关系网络的联结程度等九个因素对子公司的整体决策自主权有显著影响。本研究又进一步对子公司的个别决策自主权进行了探讨，发现对子公司整体决策自主权有影响的因素对子公司的个别决策权也有影响，但影响程度依个别决策项目各有不同。
最后，本研究依据理论分析及实证结果，分别对东道国政府、东道国企业、跨国公司母公司和子公司的管理者提出管理建议；同时也指出本研究的局限性并提出后续研究的设想。
本研究尝试对跨国公司子公司决策自主权的发展规律及其特点进行分析，并引入独特变量，构建了跨国公司子公司决策自主权影响因素的理论框架，弥补了对子公司决策自主权自身理论研究的不足，进一步完善了跨国公司子公司决策自主权研究的理论体系；本研究以跨国公司在华子公司为实证对象，也在一定程度上弥补了对跨国公司在发展中国家子公司行为实证研究不足的欠缺。
The research focus of MNCs subsidiary has been transferred from HQ perspective to transnational network perspective. Under network perspective, MNCs subsidiary's role and function have been widely recognized. Some subsidiaries do not play a receptive role dictated from HQ any more, but leap to an active player in MNCs.
This thesis focused on the subsidiary autonomy. The autonomy was defined as the level to which the HQ delegates to the subsidiary; it demonstrates the subsidiary's ability to operate independently. The degree of the subsidiary autonomy has an important influence on the organizational effectiveness and adaptiveness.
In the past literature, most theoretical studies of the subsidiary autonomy concerned the determinants of subsidiary's autonomy, or the influence of the control mechanism on the subsidiary's autonomy, and also classified the subsidiaries according to the subsidiary's autonomy degree; little attention was paid to the autonomy per se. As to the demonstrated study of the subsidiary autonomy, scholars attached much importance to the subsidiaries in the developed countries, but overlooked the related actions of the subsidiaries in the developing countries.
As a developing country with twenty years' economic development, China has obtained great achievements which attract worldwide attention. Famous MNCs set up subsidiaries in succession to occupy the market of China. Therefore, it is worthy to study the MNCs' China subsidiary's behavior. This thesis dealt with the study of the subsidiaries in the developing country, hoped to learn more about such subsidiaries as well as broaden the subsidiary autonomy theory.
First, the thesis discussed the evolvement mechanism of the subsidiary's autonomy. According to the different combinations of the ability and the authorization, the thesis classified the autonomy evolvement into five patterns, which are Parent-driven Autonomy Extension (PDE), Subsidiary-driven Autonomy Reinforcement (SDR), Subsidiary-driven Autonomy Extension (SDE), Subsidiary-driven Autonomy Atrophy (SDA), and Parent-driven Autonomy Atrophy (PDA). The research divided the causation mechanism into two parts: the internal causation mechanism and the external causation mechanism. The thesis also discussed the characteristics of the autonomy within the distinct subsidiary development phases.
Second, the thesis discussed the determinants of the subsidiary's autonomy. Based on the transaction cost theory, the agency theory, the resource based theory and the resource dependence theory; the research summed up four sorts of possible determinants, including the characteristics of the subsidiary, the characteristics of the HQ - subsidiary dyadic relationship, the characteristics of the subsidiary in the interior and exterior MNCs' network.
According to the theoretical frame, the thesis did the Empirical analysis. The results revealed that many factors, such as the age of the subsidiary, the subsidiary's relative resource and capability, the subsidiary's value chain in the host country, the manager's experience, the HQ's procedure justice, the shared value between the parent company and the subsidiary, the subsidiary's centrality in the MNCs network, the subsidiary's local responsiveness and the subsidiary's exterior connection in the host country, have influence on subsidiary general autonomy. Then, the thesis discussed the subsidiary individual decision autonomy, and the conclusion was that the determinants which influenced the general autonomy would also affect the individual decision autonomy, but in different degrees.
Finally, the thesis gave suggestions on the management of the subsidiary to the subsidiary's and the parent company's managers separately; then pointed out the limits of this research and also the possible direction of later research.
The thesis analysis the developing discipline and characteristics of subsidiary decision autonomy, introduced the new influence factors to the subsidiary autonomy determinants theory frame, thus made the subsidiary decision autonomy theory completed; the thesis took the MNCS' subsidiaries in China as the demonstration subject, which also made up for the empirical study of the subsidiary autonomy in the developing country.
以往相关文献对子公司决策自主权的探讨，多是关于对子公司决策自主权有影响的因素，或协调控制机制对子公司决策自主权的影响，或以决策自主权为分析层面对子公司的角色进行分类，对子公司决策自主权的内涵和特性涉及较少。在对跨国公司子公司决策自主权的实证研究中，也多集中在研究跨国公司在发达国家的子公司，对跨国公司在发展中国家子公司的相关行为关注较少。
中国作为发展中国家，经济经过二十多年的发展，取得了举世瞩目的成就。跨国公司为抢占中国市场，纷纷在中国设立子公司，这些跨国公司在华子公司的行为是很值得探讨的。由此，本研究以跨国公司在华子公司为实证研究主体，期望能对跨国公司在发展中国家子公司的相关行为有所了解；同时也希望本研究能通过对子公司决策自主权自身发展的理论探讨和分析，在一定程度上弥补子公司决策自主权理论研究的不足。
本研究首先探讨的是跨国公司子公司决策自主权的演进机制。根据子公司决策权限的消长，将子公司决策自主权划分为获得、发展和丧失三个生命阶段；根据能力和授权的变化组合，将子公司决策自主权的发展演变归纳为母公司驱动决策自主权扩大型、子公司驱动决策自主权强化型、子公司驱动决策自主权扩大型、子公司驱动决策自主权衰减型以及母公司驱动决策自主权衰减型五种模式并分别予以分析；以子公司所存在的跨国公司网络为边界，将子公司决策自主权演变的动因机制区分为母公司战略驱动以及子公司能力提升等内部动因机制和东道国环境不确定性等外部动因机制；跨国公司子公司的生命周期较一般企业更为复杂，由此本研究进一步分析了子公司的决策自主权在其生命周期的各个阶段表现出的不同特点。
本研究关注的另一个议题是跨国公司子公司决策自主权的影响因素。本研究以代理理论、交易成本理论、资源基础理论、资源依赖理论以及网络理论为理论依据，根据跨国公司在华子公司的特点，构建起影响子公司决策自主权影响因素的理论研究框架，包括子公司自身的特质、母-子公司关系特质、子公司在跨国公司内部网络中的特质以及子公司在跨国公司外部网络中的特质。
根据这一理论框架，本研究以跨国公司在华子公司为研究对象进行了实证分析。实证结果显示，子公司的成立年数、子公司相对母公司的资源和能力水平、子公司在地主国价值链活动的完整程度、子公司经理人的相关国际事务经验、母公司对子公司的程序公正性程度、母子公司的共享价值程度、子公司在跨国公司网络中的中心性程度、子公司的地区响应程度以及子公司与当地关系网络的联结程度等九个因素对子公司的整体决策自主权有显著影响。本研究又进一步对子公司的个别决策自主权进行了探讨，发现对子公司整体决策自主权有影响的因素对子公司的个别决策权也有影响，但影响程度依个别决策项目各有不同。
最后，本研究依据理论分析及实证结果，分别对东道国政府、东道国企业、跨国公司母公司和子公司的管理者提出管理建议；同时也指出本研究的局限性并提出后续研究的设想。
本研究尝试对跨国公司子公司决策自主权的发展规律及其特点进行分析，并引入独特变量，构建了跨国公司子公司决策自主权影响因素的理论框架，弥补了对子公司决策自主权自身理论研究的不足，进一步完善了跨国公司子公司决策自主权研究的理论体系；本研究以跨国公司在华子公司为实证对象，也在一定程度上弥补了对跨国公司在发展中国家子公司行为实证研究不足的欠缺。
The research focus of MNCs subsidiary has been transferred from HQ perspective to transnational network perspective. Under network perspective, MNCs subsidiary's role and function have been widely recognized. Some subsidiaries do not play a receptive role dictated from HQ any more, but leap to an active player in MNCs.
This thesis focused on the subsidiary autonomy. The autonomy was defined as the level to which the HQ delegates to the subsidiary; it demonstrates the subsidiary's ability to operate independently. The degree of the subsidiary autonomy has an important influence on the organizational effectiveness and adaptiveness.
In the past literature, most theoretical studies of the subsidiary autonomy concerned the determinants of subsidiary's autonomy, or the influence of the control mechanism on the subsidiary's autonomy, and also classified the subsidiaries according to the subsidiary's autonomy degree; little attention was paid to the autonomy per se. As to the demonstrated study of the subsidiary autonomy, scholars attached much importance to the subsidiaries in the developed countries, but overlooked the related actions of the subsidiaries in the developing countries.
As a developing country with twenty years' economic development, China has obtained great achievements which attract worldwide attention. Famous MNCs set up subsidiaries in succession to occupy the market of China. Therefore, it is worthy to study the MNCs' China subsidiary's behavior. This thesis dealt with the study of the subsidiaries in the developing country, hoped to learn more about such subsidiaries as well as broaden the subsidiary autonomy theory.
First, the thesis discussed the evolvement mechanism of the subsidiary's autonomy. According to the different combinations of the ability and the authorization, the thesis classified the autonomy evolvement into five patterns, which are Parent-driven Autonomy Extension (PDE), Subsidiary-driven Autonomy Reinforcement (SDR), Subsidiary-driven Autonomy Extension (SDE), Subsidiary-driven Autonomy Atrophy (SDA), and Parent-driven Autonomy Atrophy (PDA). The research divided the causation mechanism into two parts: the internal causation mechanism and the external causation mechanism. The thesis also discussed the characteristics of the autonomy within the distinct subsidiary development phases.
Second, the thesis discussed the determinants of the subsidiary's autonomy. Based on the transaction cost theory, the agency theory, the resource based theory and the resource dependence theory; the research summed up four sorts of possible determinants, including the characteristics of the subsidiary, the characteristics of the HQ - subsidiary dyadic relationship, the characteristics of the subsidiary in the interior and exterior MNCs' network.
According to the theoretical frame, the thesis did the Empirical analysis. The results revealed that many factors, such as the age of the subsidiary, the subsidiary's relative resource and capability, the subsidiary's value chain in the host country, the manager's experience, the HQ's procedure justice, the shared value between the parent company and the subsidiary, the subsidiary's centrality in the MNCs network, the subsidiary's local responsiveness and the subsidiary's exterior connection in the host country, have influence on subsidiary general autonomy. Then, the thesis discussed the subsidiary individual decision autonomy, and the conclusion was that the determinants which influenced the general autonomy would also affect the individual decision autonomy, but in different degrees.
Finally, the thesis gave suggestions on the management of the subsidiary to the subsidiary's and the parent company's managers separately; then pointed out the limits of this research and also the possible direction of later research.
The thesis analysis the developing discipline and characteristics of subsidiary decision autonomy, introduced the new influence factors to the subsidiary autonomy determinants theory frame, thus made the subsidiary decision autonomy theory completed; the thesis took the MNCS' subsidiaries in China as the demonstration subject, which also made up for the empirical study of the subsidiary autonomy in the developing country.
引文
1 英国2005年度的外国直接投资额为1645亿美元。
2 美国2005年度的外国直接投资额为994亿美元。
3 资料来源：中华人民共和国商务部网站。
1 网络观点主张网络是建立在合作与互利的基础上，通过适当的交易关系安捧，协助网络成员取得本身没有的优势(Jarillo，1988；Johanson & Mattsson，1987；Thorelli，1986)。
1 转引自《黄河明的惠普经验》，天下文化出版社，2000：p139，148．
1 如Gamier使用的23个变量．
2 如Gamier使用的23解释变量中只有4个变量有显著影响．
3 如子公司的规模对自主权的影响，Gamier的研究结论为正向，而Gates & Egelhoff的结论为负向：再如竞争环境的改变对自主权的影响，Lawrence & Lorsh的研究结论为负向，而Gates & Egelhoff的结论则为正向．
1 Gates, S. R. and W. G. Egelhoff. 1956. Centralization in headquarters-subsidiary relationships. Journal of International Business Studies, Summa, pp.71-92.
1 Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. 1989. Managing across boarders. Cambridge: HBS Press, M.A.
1 Sullivan, D. 1992. Organization in American MNCs: The perspective of the European regional headquarters. Management International Review; 32(3), pp.237-250.
2 Nohria, N. and Ghoshal. S. 1994. Differentiated Fit and Shared Values: Alternatives for Managing Headquarters-Subsidiary Relations. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, pp.491-502.
1 Taggart, J.H. and Hood, N. 1999. Determinants of Autonomy in multinational corporation subsidiaries. European Management Journal, 17(2), pp.226-236.
2 Andersson, U. and Forsgren, M. 2000. In search ofcertre of excellence: Network embeddedness and subsidiary roles in multinational corporations. Management International Review, 40(4), pp.329-350.
1 Edwards, R., Ahmad, A. and Moss, S. 2002. Subsidiary Autonomy: The case of multinational subsidiaries in Malaysia. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(1), pp. 183-191.
葛京，席酉民．多国企业组织结构理论及其演进．外国经济与管理．2001，5：23-27．
葛京，席酉民．跨国经营的工具性本质及其目标的实现．经济管理．2002，8：66-71．
葛京，杨莉，李武．跨国企业集团管理．机械工业出版社，2002．
郭志刚主编．社会统计分析方法-SPSS软件应用．中国人民大学出版社，1999．
胡蜂．跨国公司在华子公司发展问题研究．上海行政学院学报，2003，Vol．4，1：73-79．
林峰．跨国公司战略调整与中国对策．社会科学文献出版社，2005．
王钦．跨国公司在华市场战略变迁-基于价值链的分析．甘肃社会科学．2003，6：45-48
王永乐，李美香．跨国公司子公司自治权之影响因素分析．中外企业家，2005，10：59-65．
王志乐．2005跨国公司在中国报告．中国经济出版社，2005
王志乐．跨国公司在华发展新趋势．新华出版社，2003．
王志乐．入世背景下跨国公司在华投资新动向．中国经贸导刊．2003，6：12-15．
韦福祥．企业间网络组织及创新机制的形成新探．现代财经．2001，1：52-53．
冼国明，葛顺奇．跨国公司FDI与东道国外资政策演变．南开经济研究．2002，1：3-9．
徐金发，张慧．跨国公司子公司研究的演进和未来的发展方向．国际贸易问题．2005，12：110-115
薛求知，罗来军．合资子公司的演化路径．开放导报．2006，4：59-63
薛求知，罗来军．跨国公司控制合资子公司的机制探析．财贸研究．2006，Vol．17，4：96-101
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．2001，1：54-56．
杨桂菊，徐金发．跨国公司对东道国国家竞争力的影响．现代国际关系．2003，7：51-55
杨瑞龙，朱春燕．网络与社会资本的经济学分析框架．学习与探索．2002，1：60-66．
杨忠．跨国公司控制合资企业机制研究．江苏人民出版社，2002．
姚小涛，席酉民．社会网络理论及其在企业研究中的应用．西安交通大学学报(社会科学版)．2003，9：22-28．
曾国军．跨国公司在华子公司战略演变的动因与路径．管理科学．2006，4：15-21
赵福厚．跨国公司母子公司关系中自治权的确定性研究．南开管理评论．2004，Vol．7，5：106-111．
赵景华．跨国公司海外子公司的三个理论流派比较研究．南开管理评论．2001，6：74-77
赵景华．跨国公司海外子公司角色演进的机制分析．齐鲁学刊．2001，6：105-111．
赵景华．跨国公司在华子公司战略研究．经济管理出版社，2002．
赵景华．跨国公司子公司成长与发展的战略机制研究．东岳论丛．2001，Vol．22，6：34-40
赵民杰，姜飞．跨国公司组织结构演化研究．经济经纬．2005，2：30-32
Ajami, R. 1991. Designing Multinational Networks. in R. H. Kilmann, I. Kilmann and Associates(eds), Making Organizations Competitive—Enhancing Networks and Relationships Across Traditional Boundaries. New York: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Anderaon, J. C., H. Hakansson and J. Johanson. 1994. Dyadic business relationships within a business network context. Journal of Marketing, Vol..55, pp. 1-15.
Andersson, U. 2003. Managing the transfer of capabilities within multinational corporations: the dual role of the subsidiary. Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 19, pp. 425-442.
Andersson, U. and C. Pahlberg. 1997. Subsidiary influence on strategic behavior in MNCs: An empirical study. International Business Review, Vol.6, pp.319-334,
Andersson, U. and Forsgren, M. 1996. Subsidiary embeddedness and control in the multinational corporation. International Business Review, 5(5), pp.487-508
Andersson, U. and Forsgren, M. 2000. In search of certre of excellence: Network embeddedness and subsidiary roles in multinational corporations. Management International Review, 40(4), pp.329-350.
Andersson, U., Forsgren, M. and Holm, U. 2002. The Strategic Impact of External Network: Subsidiary Performance and Competence Development in The Multinational Corporation. Strategic Management Journal, Vol.23, pp.979-996.
Andrew, K. P. 1971. The Concept of Corporate Strategy: An Analytic Approach to Business Policy for Growth and Expansion, Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Asheghian, P. and B. Ebrahimi. 1990. International Business, NY: Harper & Row.
Baker, W. E. 1992. The Network Organization in Theory and Practice. in N. Nohria and R. G. Eccles(ed), Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, pp.397-429.
Baliga, B. R. and Jaeger, A. M. 1984. Multinational corporations: control systems and delegation issues. Journal of International Business Studies, 15(2), pp. 25-39.
Barnard, C. 1939. The Functions of the Executive. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Bartlett, C. A. and Ghoshal, S. 1956. Tap your subsidiaries for global reach. Harvard Business Review, 64(6), pp.87-94.
Bartlett, C. A. and Ghoshal, S. 1989. Managing across boarders. Cambridge: HBS Press, M. A.
Bartlett, C. A. and Ghoshal, S. 1990. The Multinational Corporation as an Interorganizational Network. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, Iss.4, pp. 603-625.
Behrman, J. N. & W. A. Fischer. 1979. The Coordination of Foreign R & D Activities by Transnational Corporations. Journal of International Business studies, Vol. 10, Iss.3, pp.29-35.
Bergen, M., S. Dutta, and O. Walker. 1992. Agency Relationships in Marketing: A Review of the Implications and Applications of Agency and Related Theories. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), pp. 1-24.
Birkinshaw, J. M. 1995. Entreprenrurship in multinational corporations: The initative processes in Canadian subsidiaries. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Business School, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
Birkinshaw, J. M. 1996. How subsidiary mandates are gained and lost. Journal of International Business Studies, 27, pp.467-496.
Birkinshaw, J. M. 1997. Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: The characteristics of subsidiary initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, 18(3), pp.207-229.
Birkinshaw, J. M. 1998. Corporate entrepreneurship in network organizations: How subsidiary initiative drives internal market efficiency. European Management Journal, vol. 16, pp.355-365.
Birkinshaw, J. M. and J. Ridderstrale. 1999. Fighting the corporate immune system: A prosess study of subsidiary initiatives in multinational corporations. International Business Review, Vol.8, pp. 149-180.
Birkinshaw, J. M. and N. Hood. 1998. Multinational corporate evolution and subsidiary development. London. MacMillan Press Inc.
Birkinshaw, J. M. and Hood, N. 1998. Multinational subsidiary evolution: capability and charter change in foreign- owned subsidiary companies. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), pp.773-795.
Birkinshaw, J. M., Hood, N. and Jonsson, S. 1998. Building firm- specific advantages in Multinational corporations: The role of subsidiary initiative. Strategic Management Journal, 19, pp.221-241.
Birkinshaw, J. M. and Morrison, A. J. 1995. Configurations of strategy and structure in subsidiaries of multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(4), pp.719-753.
Burns, T. & G. M. Stalker. 1961. The Management of Innovation. Tavistock, London.
Burt, R., 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Calvet, A. L. 1981. A Synthesis of Foreign Direct Investment Theories and Theories of the Multinational Firm. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 12, Iss. 1, pp.43-59.
Caruth, B. D. and T. A. Pressley. 1984. Key factors in positive delegation. Supervisory Management, 29(7), pp. 6-11.
Chakravarthy, B. S. & P. Lorange. 1989. Strategic Adaptation in Multibusiness Firms. Working Paper, Vol.209, Strategic Management Research Center, University of Minnesota.
Child, J. 1972. Organization Structure and Strategies of Control: A Replication of the Aston Study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(2), pp. 163-177.
Child, J. 1973. Strategies of control and organizational behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, pp. 1-17.
Cravens, D. W., Shipp, S. H. and Cravens, S. H. 1994. Reforming the Traditional Organization: The Mandate for Developing Networks. Business Horizon, 37(4). pp. 19-28.
Cray, D. 1984. Control and coordination in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, First Quarter, pp.85-98.
Daily, C. M. and C. Schwenk. 1996. Chief executive officers, top management teams, and boards of directors: Congruent or countervailing forces?. Journal of Management, 22(2), pp 185-208.
Damanpour, F. 1991. Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, pp.555-590.
D'Cruz, J. R. 1986. Strategic management of subsidiaries. In H. Etemad and Seguin Dulude(eds.). Managing the Multinational Subsidiary. Croom Helm, London, pp.75-4-19.
Doz, Y. L. and C. K. Prahalad. 1981. Headquarters Influence and Strategic Control in MNCs. Sloan Management Review, Fall, Vol.22, Iss.4, pp.15-29.
Doz, Y. L. and C. K. Prahalad. 1980. How MNCs cope with host government intervention?. Harvard Business Review; 58(2), pp. 149-170.
Dunning, J. H. 1995. Reappraising the eclectic paradigm in an age of alliance capitalism. Journal of International Business Studies, third quarter, pp. 461-491.
Dunning, J. H. 1988. The eclectic paradigm of international production: A restatement and some possible extensions. Journal of International Business Studies, 19, pp. 1-31.
Eccles, R. G. and Crane, D. B. 1987. Managing Through Networks In Investment Banking. California Management Review, 39(Fail), pp. 176-95.
Edwards, R., Ahmad, A. and Moss, S. 2002. Subsidiary Autonomy: The case of multinational subsidiaries in Malaysia. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(1), pp. 183-191.
Egelhoff, W. G. 1991. Information-processing theory and the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.22, pp.341-368.
Floyd S. W. and B. Wooldridge. 1997. Middle management's strategic influence and organizational performance. The Journal of Management Studies; 34(3), pp.465-485.
Garnier, G. H. 1982. Context and decision making autonomy in foreign affiliates of U. S. multinational corporations. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.25(4), pp.893-908.
Gates, S. R. and W. G. Egelhoff. 1986. Centralization in headquarters-subsidiary relationships. Journal of International Business Studies, Summer, pp.71-92.
Ghoshal, S. and Bartlett, C. A. 1988. Creation, adoption, and diffusion of innovation by subsidiaries of multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 19, pp.365-388.
Ghoshal, S. and Bartlett, C. A. 1990. The multinational corporation as an interorganizational network. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), pp.603-625.
Ghoshal, S. and D. E. Westney. 1993. Introduction and overview, in S. Ghoshal and Westney (eds.), Organization theory and the multinational cooperation, New York: St. Martin's Press.
Ghoshal, S. and Nohria, N. 1989. Internal differentiation within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 10(4), pp.323-338.
Goehle, D. G. 1980. Decision making in multinational corporations, UMI Research Press.
Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddness. American Journal of Sociology, Vol.91 (3), pp.481-510.
Grant, R. M. 1991. The resource based theory of competitive advantage: Implication for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), pp. 114-135
Gulati, R, Nohria, N and Zaheer A. 2000. Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal. Special Issue 21, pp. 203-215.
Gupta, A. K. and Govindarajan, V. 1991. Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational corporations. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), pp.768-792.
Gupta, A. K. and Govindarajan, V. 1994. Organizing for knowledge within MNCs. International Business Review, 3(4), pp.443-457.
Hage, F. and Aiken, M. 1967. Relationship of centralization to other structural properties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), pp. 72-92.
Hakansson, H. 1989. Corporate Technological Behaviour: Cooperations and Networks. Routledge: London.
Hambrick, D. C. and P. A. Mason. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), pp. 193-206.
Hamel, G. 1991. Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 12 (Special Issue), pp.83-104.
Hedlund, G. 1981. Autonomy of subsidiaries and formalization of headquarters-subsidiary relationships in swedish MNCs. In L. Otterbeck(ed.), The management of headquarters-subsidiary relationships in multinational corporations, New York: St. Martin Press.
Hedlund, G. 1986. The hyperrnodern MNC- A heterarehy? Human Resource Management, 25(1), pp. 9-35.
Hedlund, G. 1994. A model of knowledge management and the M-form corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 15, pp.73-90.
Hedlund, G. and D. Rolander. D. 1990. Action in heterarchies: New approaches to managing the NNC, In C. A. Bartlett, Y. Doz and G. Hedlund (eds). Managing the Global Firm. London and New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Hennart, J. F. 1991. The transaction cost theory of the multinational enterprise. The nature of the transnational firm, Ch4, pp. 81-116.
Hill, C. W. L. 1998. Global Business Today. USA: McGraw-Hill Company.
Hobbs, E. J. 1996. A transaction cost approach to supply chain management. Supply Chain Management, 1 (2), pp. 15-27.
Jarillo, J. C. and J. I. Martinez. 1990. Different roles for subsidiaries: The case of multinational corporations in Spain. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, pp.501-512.
Jarillo, J. C. 1988. On Strategic Networks. Strategic Management Journal, 9, pp.31-41.
Jensen, M. C. and W. H. Meckling. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(2), pp. 305-360.
Johanson, J. and Mattson, L. G. 1987. Interorganizational relations in industrial systems: A Network approach compared with the transaction- cost approach. International Studies of Management and Organization, 17(1), pp.34-48.
Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J. E. 1977. The internationalization process of the firm-A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8, pp.23-32.
Kamann, D. J. F. and Strijker, D. 1991. The Network Approach: Concepts and Applcations. in Innovation Networks, spatial Perspectives. Camagni, R. (ed.), London: Belhaven Press, pp. 145-173.
Kanter, R. M. and Eccles. R. G. 1992. Making Network Research Relevant to Practice. in N. Nohria and R. G. Eccles(eds), Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, andAction. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, pp.521-7.
Katz, R. 1982. The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(1), pp.81-104.
Keck, S. L. 1997. Top management team structure: Differential effects by environmental context. Organization Science, 8(2), pp. 143-156
Kim, W. C. and R. Mauborgne. 1993. Procedural justice, attitudes and subsidiary top management compliance with multinational's corporate strategic decisions. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.36, pp.502-526.
Kluckhohn, C. et al. 1951. Values and value orientation in the Theory of action: An Exploration in Definition and Classification. In Talcott Parsons & Edward Shils (eds), Toward a General Theory of Action (pp.388-433), Cambridge, MA.
Kogut, B. and U. Zander. 1993. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, pp.625-645.
Lawrence, P. and J. Lorsch. 1967. Organization and Environment. Boston: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration, Division of Research.
Liouville, J. and C. Nanopoulos. 1996. Performance factors of subsidiaries abroad: Lessons in an analysis of German subsidiaries in France. Management International Review, Vol.36, pp. 101-121.
Madhok, A. 1997. Cost, value and foreign market entry mode: The transaction and the firm. Strategic Mmanagement Journal, Vol.18, pp. 39-61.
Mannik, K; Hannula, H; Varblane, U. 2004. Country, industry and firm size effects on foreign subsidiary strategy'. An example of five CEE countries. University of Tartu, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Working Paper Series, No. 27, 63 p.
Martinez, J. I. and Jarillo, J. C. 1989. The evolution of research on coordination mechanisms in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 20(3), pp.489-514.
Martinez, J. I. and Jarillo, J. C. 1991. Coordination demands of international strategies. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(3), pp.429-444.
Mattson and F. Widersheim-Paul(eds), Recent Research on the Internationalization of Business, Uppsala, Almqvist & Wiksel.
Mckern, B. 1993. An evolutionary approach to strategic management in the international firm. Implementing Strategic Processes: Change, Learning and Co-operation, Lorange, Chakravarthy, Roos and Van de Ven (eds), Blackwell.
Michel, J. G., and D. C. Hambrick. 1992. Diversification posture and top management team characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), pp.9-37.
Miles, R. E. and Snow, C. C. 1992. Causes of Failure in Network Organizations. California Management Review, 35(Summer), pp.53-72.
Miller, D. 1983. The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29, pp.770-791.
Moore, K. and J. Birkinshaw. 1998. Managing knowledge in global service firms: Centers of excellence, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, pp.81-92.
Morris, M. H., Davis, D. L, and Allen, J. W. 1994. Fostering corporate entrepreneurship: cross- cultural comparsions of the importance of individualism versus collectivism. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), pp.65-4-19.
Nohria, N. and Ghoshal. S. 1994. Differentiated Fit and Shared Values: Alternatives for Managing Headquarters-Subsidiary Relations. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, pp.491-502.
Nunally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, C. 1990. Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, pp.241-265.
Park, S. H. and Y. Luo. 2001. Guanxi and organizational dynamics: Organizational networking in Chinese firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), pp. 455-477.
Parsons, T. 1956. A Sociological Approach to the Theory of Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 1, pp.63-85, 225-239.
Paterson, S. L; Brock, D. M. 2002. The development of subsidiary management research: review and theoretical analysis. International Business Review, Vol.11, pp.139-163.
Penrose, E. 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, NY: Wiley and Sons.
Pearce, R. 1999. The evolution of technology in multinational enterprises: The role of creative subsidiaries. International Business Review. Vol.8, pp. 125-148.
Perlmutter, H. V. 1969. The tortuous evolution of the multinational corporation. Columbia Journal of World Business, 4, pp. 9-18.
Peteraf, M. A. 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), pp. 179-191.
Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. R. 1978. The External Control of Organizations: A resource dependence perspective. N. Y.: Harper and Row.
Picard, J. 1977. Factors of variance in multinational marketing control, in L. G. Mattson and F. Widersheim-Paul (eds.), Recent Research on the Internationalization of Business, Uppsala, Almqvist & Wiksel.
Piercy, N. f. and D. W. Cravens. 1995. The network paradigm and the marketing organization: Developing a new management agenda. European Journal of Marketing, 29(3), pp. 7-34.
Porter, M. E. 1980. Competitive Strategy. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. E. 1985. Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. E. 1986. Competition in Global industries. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Porter, M. E. 1990. The Competitive advantage of Nations. Macmillan, London.
Povan, K. G. 1983. The federation as an interorganizationai linkage network. Academy of Management Review, 8(1), pp.79-gg.
Prahalad, C. K. and Doz, Y. L. 1981. An approach to strategic control in MNCs. Sloan Management Review, 22(Summer), pp.5-13.
Prahalad, C. K. and Y. L. Doz. 1987. The multinational mission- balancing local demands andglobal vision. New York: The Free Press.
Prahalad, C. K. and Hamel. G. 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), pp. 79-81.
Rasmusen E. 1989. Games and information: An introduction to game theory. New Yourk: B. Blackwell.
Richards, M. 2000. Control exercised by U. S. multinationals over their overseas affiliates : Does Location make a difference? Journal of international Management, Vol.6, pp. 105-120.
Roth, K. and Morrison, A. J. 1992. Implementing global strategy: Characteristics of global subsidiary mandates. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(4), pp. 715-3-236.
Sambharya, R. B. 1996. Foreign experience of top management teams and international diversification strategies of U. S. multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal; 17(9), pp.739-746.
Stevenson, H. H. & Jarillo, J. C. 1990. A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11 (summer special issue), pp. 17-27.
Stewart, J. M. 1995. Empowering multinational subsidiaries. Long Range Planning, Vol.28, pp.63-73.
Stopford, J. M. and L. T. Wells. 1972. Managing the multinational enterprise. Basic Books, New York.
Sullivan, D. 1992. Organization in American MNCs: The perspective of the European regional headquarters. Management International Review; 32(3), pp.237-250.
Taggart, J. H. sad Hood, N. 1999. Determinants of Autonomy in multinational corporation subsidiaries. European Management Journal, 17(2), pp.226-236.
Taggart, J. H. 1997. Autonomy and procedural justice: A framework for evaluating subsidiary strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(1), pp.51-76.
Taggart, J. H. 1998. Strategy shifts in MNCs subsidiaries. Strategic Management Journal, 19, pp.663-68 I.
Taggart, J. H. 1999. MNC subsidiary performance, risk, and corporate expectations. International Business Review, 8(2), pp.233-255.
Teece, D. J. 1976. The Multinational Corporation and the Resource Cost of Technology Transfer. Cambridge, MA., Ballinger.
Teece, D. J. 1986. Transaction cost economics and the multinational enterprise. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization.vol.7, pp. 21-45.
Thorelli, H. B. 1986. Networks: Between Markets and Hierarchies. Strategic Management Journal, Vol.7, Iss. 1, pp.37-51.
Tsai, W. and Ghoshal. 1998. Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.41, pp.464-476.
Ulrich, D. & J. B. Barney. 1984. Perspectives in organizations: Resource dependence, efficiency, and population. Academy of Management Review, 9(3), pp.471-481.
Vachani, S. 1999. Clobal diversification's effect on multinational subsidiaries' autonomy. Journal of International Business Studies, 8, pp.535-560.
Vernon, R. 1966. International investments and international trade in the product cycle. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80, pp.190-207.
Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), pp. 171-180.
White, R. E. and T. A. Poynter. 1984. Strategies for foreign- owned subsidiaries in Canada. Business Quarterly, Summer, pp.59-69.
Williamson, O. E. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York, Free Press.
Williamson, O. E. 1981. The Modern Corporation: Origins, Evolution, Attributes. Journal of Economic Literature; 19(4), pp. 1537-1568.
Williamson, O. E. 1985. The New Institutional Economics. New York, Free Press.
2 美国2005年度的外国直接投资额为994亿美元。
3 资料来源：中华人民共和国商务部网站。
1 网络观点主张网络是建立在合作与互利的基础上，通过适当的交易关系安捧，协助网络成员取得本身没有的优势(Jarillo，1988；Johanson & Mattsson，1987；Thorelli，1986)。
1 转引自《黄河明的惠普经验》，天下文化出版社，2000：p139，148．
1 如Gamier使用的23个变量．
2 如Gamier使用的23解释变量中只有4个变量有显著影响．
3 如子公司的规模对自主权的影响，Gamier的研究结论为正向，而Gates & Egelhoff的结论为负向：再如竞争环境的改变对自主权的影响，Lawrence & Lorsh的研究结论为负向，而Gates & Egelhoff的结论则为正向．
1 Gates, S. R. and W. G. Egelhoff. 1956. Centralization in headquarters-subsidiary relationships. Journal of International Business Studies, Summa, pp.71-92.
1 Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. 1989. Managing across boarders. Cambridge: HBS Press, M.A.
1 Sullivan, D. 1992. Organization in American MNCs: The perspective of the European regional headquarters. Management International Review; 32(3), pp.237-250.
2 Nohria, N. and Ghoshal. S. 1994. Differentiated Fit and Shared Values: Alternatives for Managing Headquarters-Subsidiary Relations. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, pp.491-502.
1 Taggart, J.H. and Hood, N. 1999. Determinants of Autonomy in multinational corporation subsidiaries. European Management Journal, 17(2), pp.226-236.
2 Andersson, U. and Forsgren, M. 2000. In search ofcertre of excellence: Network embeddedness and subsidiary roles in multinational corporations. Management International Review, 40(4), pp.329-350.
1 Edwards, R., Ahmad, A. and Moss, S. 2002. Subsidiary Autonomy: The case of multinational subsidiaries in Malaysia. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(1), pp. 183-191.
葛京，席酉民．多国企业组织结构理论及其演进．外国经济与管理．2001，5：23-27．
葛京，席酉民．跨国经营的工具性本质及其目标的实现．经济管理．2002，8：66-71．
葛京，杨莉，李武．跨国企业集团管理．机械工业出版社，2002．
郭志刚主编．社会统计分析方法-SPSS软件应用．中国人民大学出版社，1999．
胡蜂．跨国公司在华子公司发展问题研究．上海行政学院学报，2003，Vol．4，1：73-79．
林峰．跨国公司战略调整与中国对策．社会科学文献出版社，2005．
王钦．跨国公司在华市场战略变迁-基于价值链的分析．甘肃社会科学．2003，6：45-48
王永乐，李美香．跨国公司子公司自治权之影响因素分析．中外企业家，2005，10：59-65．
王志乐．2005跨国公司在中国报告．中国经济出版社，2005
王志乐．跨国公司在华发展新趋势．新华出版社，2003．
王志乐．入世背景下跨国公司在华投资新动向．中国经贸导刊．2003，6：12-15．
韦福祥．企业间网络组织及创新机制的形成新探．现代财经．2001，1：52-53．
冼国明，葛顺奇．跨国公司FDI与东道国外资政策演变．南开经济研究．2002，1：3-9．
徐金发，张慧．跨国公司子公司研究的演进和未来的发展方向．国际贸易问题．2005，12：110-115
薛求知，罗来军．合资子公司的演化路径．开放导报．2006，4：59-63
薛求知，罗来军．跨国公司控制合资子公司的机制探析．财贸研究．2006，Vol．17，4：96-101
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．2001，1：54-56．
杨桂菊，徐金发．跨国公司对东道国国家竞争力的影响．现代国际关系．2003，7：51-55
杨瑞龙，朱春燕．网络与社会资本的经济学分析框架．学习与探索．2002，1：60-66．
杨忠．跨国公司控制合资企业机制研究．江苏人民出版社，2002．
姚小涛，席酉民．社会网络理论及其在企业研究中的应用．西安交通大学学报(社会科学版)．2003，9：22-28．
曾国军．跨国公司在华子公司战略演变的动因与路径．管理科学．2006，4：15-21
赵福厚．跨国公司母子公司关系中自治权的确定性研究．南开管理评论．2004，Vol．7，5：106-111．
赵景华．跨国公司海外子公司的三个理论流派比较研究．南开管理评论．2001，6：74-77
赵景华．跨国公司海外子公司角色演进的机制分析．齐鲁学刊．2001，6：105-111．
赵景华．跨国公司在华子公司战略研究．经济管理出版社，2002．
赵景华．跨国公司子公司成长与发展的战略机制研究．东岳论丛．2001，Vol．22，6：34-40
赵民杰，姜飞．跨国公司组织结构演化研究．经济经纬．2005，2：30-32
Ajami, R. 1991. Designing Multinational Networks. in R. H. Kilmann, I. Kilmann and Associates(eds), Making Organizations Competitive—Enhancing Networks and Relationships Across Traditional Boundaries. New York: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Anderaon, J. C., H. Hakansson and J. Johanson. 1994. Dyadic business relationships within a business network context. Journal of Marketing, Vol..55, pp. 1-15.
Andersson, U. 2003. Managing the transfer of capabilities within multinational corporations: the dual role of the subsidiary. Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 19, pp. 425-442.
Andersson, U. and C. Pahlberg. 1997. Subsidiary influence on strategic behavior in MNCs: An empirical study. International Business Review, Vol.6, pp.319-334,
Andersson, U. and Forsgren, M. 1996. Subsidiary embeddedness and control in the multinational corporation. International Business Review, 5(5), pp.487-508
Andersson, U. and Forsgren, M. 2000. In search of certre of excellence: Network embeddedness and subsidiary roles in multinational corporations. Management International Review, 40(4), pp.329-350.
Andersson, U., Forsgren, M. and Holm, U. 2002. The Strategic Impact of External Network: Subsidiary Performance and Competence Development in The Multinational Corporation. Strategic Management Journal, Vol.23, pp.979-996.
Andrew, K. P. 1971. The Concept of Corporate Strategy: An Analytic Approach to Business Policy for Growth and Expansion, Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Asheghian, P. and B. Ebrahimi. 1990. International Business, NY: Harper & Row.
Baker, W. E. 1992. The Network Organization in Theory and Practice. in N. Nohria and R. G. Eccles(ed), Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, pp.397-429.
Baliga, B. R. and Jaeger, A. M. 1984. Multinational corporations: control systems and delegation issues. Journal of International Business Studies, 15(2), pp. 25-39.
Barnard, C. 1939. The Functions of the Executive. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Bartlett, C. A. and Ghoshal, S. 1956. Tap your subsidiaries for global reach. Harvard Business Review, 64(6), pp.87-94.
Bartlett, C. A. and Ghoshal, S. 1989. Managing across boarders. Cambridge: HBS Press, M. A.
Bartlett, C. A. and Ghoshal, S. 1990. The Multinational Corporation as an Interorganizational Network. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, Iss.4, pp. 603-625.
Behrman, J. N. & W. A. Fischer. 1979. The Coordination of Foreign R & D Activities by Transnational Corporations. Journal of International Business studies, Vol. 10, Iss.3, pp.29-35.
Bergen, M., S. Dutta, and O. Walker. 1992. Agency Relationships in Marketing: A Review of the Implications and Applications of Agency and Related Theories. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), pp. 1-24.
Birkinshaw, J. M. 1995. Entreprenrurship in multinational corporations: The initative processes in Canadian subsidiaries. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Business School, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
Birkinshaw, J. M. 1996. How subsidiary mandates are gained and lost. Journal of International Business Studies, 27, pp.467-496.
Birkinshaw, J. M. 1997. Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: The characteristics of subsidiary initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, 18(3), pp.207-229.
Birkinshaw, J. M. 1998. Corporate entrepreneurship in network organizations: How subsidiary initiative drives internal market efficiency. European Management Journal, vol. 16, pp.355-365.
Birkinshaw, J. M. and J. Ridderstrale. 1999. Fighting the corporate immune system: A prosess study of subsidiary initiatives in multinational corporations. International Business Review, Vol.8, pp. 149-180.
Birkinshaw, J. M. and N. Hood. 1998. Multinational corporate evolution and subsidiary development. London. MacMillan Press Inc.
Birkinshaw, J. M. and Hood, N. 1998. Multinational subsidiary evolution: capability and charter change in foreign- owned subsidiary companies. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), pp.773-795.
Birkinshaw, J. M., Hood, N. and Jonsson, S. 1998. Building firm- specific advantages in Multinational corporations: The role of subsidiary initiative. Strategic Management Journal, 19, pp.221-241.
Birkinshaw, J. M. and Morrison, A. J. 1995. Configurations of strategy and structure in subsidiaries of multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(4), pp.719-753.
Burns, T. & G. M. Stalker. 1961. The Management of Innovation. Tavistock, London.
Burt, R., 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Calvet, A. L. 1981. A Synthesis of Foreign Direct Investment Theories and Theories of the Multinational Firm. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 12, Iss. 1, pp.43-59.
Caruth, B. D. and T. A. Pressley. 1984. Key factors in positive delegation. Supervisory Management, 29(7), pp. 6-11.
Chakravarthy, B. S. & P. Lorange. 1989. Strategic Adaptation in Multibusiness Firms. Working Paper, Vol.209, Strategic Management Research Center, University of Minnesota.
Child, J. 1972. Organization Structure and Strategies of Control: A Replication of the Aston Study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(2), pp. 163-177.
Child, J. 1973. Strategies of control and organizational behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, pp. 1-17.
Cravens, D. W., Shipp, S. H. and Cravens, S. H. 1994. Reforming the Traditional Organization: The Mandate for Developing Networks. Business Horizon, 37(4). pp. 19-28.
Cray, D. 1984. Control and coordination in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, First Quarter, pp.85-98.
Daily, C. M. and C. Schwenk. 1996. Chief executive officers, top management teams, and boards of directors: Congruent or countervailing forces?. Journal of Management, 22(2), pp 185-208.
Damanpour, F. 1991. Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, pp.555-590.
D'Cruz, J. R. 1986. Strategic management of subsidiaries. In H. Etemad and Seguin Dulude(eds.). Managing the Multinational Subsidiary. Croom Helm, London, pp.75-4-19.
Doz, Y. L. and C. K. Prahalad. 1981. Headquarters Influence and Strategic Control in MNCs. Sloan Management Review, Fall, Vol.22, Iss.4, pp.15-29.
Doz, Y. L. and C. K. Prahalad. 1980. How MNCs cope with host government intervention?. Harvard Business Review; 58(2), pp. 149-170.
Dunning, J. H. 1995. Reappraising the eclectic paradigm in an age of alliance capitalism. Journal of International Business Studies, third quarter, pp. 461-491.
Dunning, J. H. 1988. The eclectic paradigm of international production: A restatement and some possible extensions. Journal of International Business Studies, 19, pp. 1-31.
Eccles, R. G. and Crane, D. B. 1987. Managing Through Networks In Investment Banking. California Management Review, 39(Fail), pp. 176-95.
Edwards, R., Ahmad, A. and Moss, S. 2002. Subsidiary Autonomy: The case of multinational subsidiaries in Malaysia. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(1), pp. 183-191.
Egelhoff, W. G. 1991. Information-processing theory and the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.22, pp.341-368.
Floyd S. W. and B. Wooldridge. 1997. Middle management's strategic influence and organizational performance. The Journal of Management Studies; 34(3), pp.465-485.
Garnier, G. H. 1982. Context and decision making autonomy in foreign affiliates of U. S. multinational corporations. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.25(4), pp.893-908.
Gates, S. R. and W. G. Egelhoff. 1986. Centralization in headquarters-subsidiary relationships. Journal of International Business Studies, Summer, pp.71-92.
Ghoshal, S. and Bartlett, C. A. 1988. Creation, adoption, and diffusion of innovation by subsidiaries of multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 19, pp.365-388.
Ghoshal, S. and Bartlett, C. A. 1990. The multinational corporation as an interorganizational network. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), pp.603-625.
Ghoshal, S. and D. E. Westney. 1993. Introduction and overview, in S. Ghoshal and Westney (eds.), Organization theory and the multinational cooperation, New York: St. Martin's Press.
Ghoshal, S. and Nohria, N. 1989. Internal differentiation within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 10(4), pp.323-338.
Goehle, D. G. 1980. Decision making in multinational corporations, UMI Research Press.
Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddness. American Journal of Sociology, Vol.91 (3), pp.481-510.
Grant, R. M. 1991. The resource based theory of competitive advantage: Implication for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), pp. 114-135
Gulati, R, Nohria, N and Zaheer A. 2000. Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal. Special Issue 21, pp. 203-215.
Gupta, A. K. and Govindarajan, V. 1991. Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational corporations. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), pp.768-792.
Gupta, A. K. and Govindarajan, V. 1994. Organizing for knowledge within MNCs. International Business Review, 3(4), pp.443-457.
Hage, F. and Aiken, M. 1967. Relationship of centralization to other structural properties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), pp. 72-92.
Hakansson, H. 1989. Corporate Technological Behaviour: Cooperations and Networks. Routledge: London.
Hambrick, D. C. and P. A. Mason. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), pp. 193-206.
Hamel, G. 1991. Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 12 (Special Issue), pp.83-104.
Hedlund, G. 1981. Autonomy of subsidiaries and formalization of headquarters-subsidiary relationships in swedish MNCs. In L. Otterbeck(ed.), The management of headquarters-subsidiary relationships in multinational corporations, New York: St. Martin Press.
Hedlund, G. 1986. The hyperrnodern MNC- A heterarehy? Human Resource Management, 25(1), pp. 9-35.
Hedlund, G. 1994. A model of knowledge management and the M-form corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 15, pp.73-90.
Hedlund, G. and D. Rolander. D. 1990. Action in heterarchies: New approaches to managing the NNC, In C. A. Bartlett, Y. Doz and G. Hedlund (eds). Managing the Global Firm. London and New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Hennart, J. F. 1991. The transaction cost theory of the multinational enterprise. The nature of the transnational firm, Ch4, pp. 81-116.
Hill, C. W. L. 1998. Global Business Today. USA: McGraw-Hill Company.
Hobbs, E. J. 1996. A transaction cost approach to supply chain management. Supply Chain Management, 1 (2), pp. 15-27.
Jarillo, J. C. and J. I. Martinez. 1990. Different roles for subsidiaries: The case of multinational corporations in Spain. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, pp.501-512.
Jarillo, J. C. 1988. On Strategic Networks. Strategic Management Journal, 9, pp.31-41.
Jensen, M. C. and W. H. Meckling. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(2), pp. 305-360.
Johanson, J. and Mattson, L. G. 1987. Interorganizational relations in industrial systems: A Network approach compared with the transaction- cost approach. International Studies of Management and Organization, 17(1), pp.34-48.
Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J. E. 1977. The internationalization process of the firm-A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8, pp.23-32.
Kamann, D. J. F. and Strijker, D. 1991. The Network Approach: Concepts and Applcations. in Innovation Networks, spatial Perspectives. Camagni, R. (ed.), London: Belhaven Press, pp. 145-173.
Kanter, R. M. and Eccles. R. G. 1992. Making Network Research Relevant to Practice. in N. Nohria and R. G. Eccles(eds), Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, andAction. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, pp.521-7.
Katz, R. 1982. The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(1), pp.81-104.
Keck, S. L. 1997. Top management team structure: Differential effects by environmental context. Organization Science, 8(2), pp. 143-156
Kim, W. C. and R. Mauborgne. 1993. Procedural justice, attitudes and subsidiary top management compliance with multinational's corporate strategic decisions. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.36, pp.502-526.
Kluckhohn, C. et al. 1951. Values and value orientation in the Theory of action: An Exploration in Definition and Classification. In Talcott Parsons & Edward Shils (eds), Toward a General Theory of Action (pp.388-433), Cambridge, MA.
Kogut, B. and U. Zander. 1993. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, pp.625-645.
Lawrence, P. and J. Lorsch. 1967. Organization and Environment. Boston: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration, Division of Research.
Liouville, J. and C. Nanopoulos. 1996. Performance factors of subsidiaries abroad: Lessons in an analysis of German subsidiaries in France. Management International Review, Vol.36, pp. 101-121.
Madhok, A. 1997. Cost, value and foreign market entry mode: The transaction and the firm. Strategic Mmanagement Journal, Vol.18, pp. 39-61.
Mannik, K; Hannula, H; Varblane, U. 2004. Country, industry and firm size effects on foreign subsidiary strategy'. An example of five CEE countries. University of Tartu, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Working Paper Series, No. 27, 63 p.
Martinez, J. I. and Jarillo, J. C. 1989. The evolution of research on coordination mechanisms in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 20(3), pp.489-514.
Martinez, J. I. and Jarillo, J. C. 1991. Coordination demands of international strategies. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(3), pp.429-444.
Mattson and F. Widersheim-Paul(eds), Recent Research on the Internationalization of Business, Uppsala, Almqvist & Wiksel.
Mckern, B. 1993. An evolutionary approach to strategic management in the international firm. Implementing Strategic Processes: Change, Learning and Co-operation, Lorange, Chakravarthy, Roos and Van de Ven (eds), Blackwell.
Michel, J. G., and D. C. Hambrick. 1992. Diversification posture and top management team characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), pp.9-37.
Miles, R. E. and Snow, C. C. 1992. Causes of Failure in Network Organizations. California Management Review, 35(Summer), pp.53-72.
Miller, D. 1983. The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29, pp.770-791.
Moore, K. and J. Birkinshaw. 1998. Managing knowledge in global service firms: Centers of excellence, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, pp.81-92.
Morris, M. H., Davis, D. L, and Allen, J. W. 1994. Fostering corporate entrepreneurship: cross- cultural comparsions of the importance of individualism versus collectivism. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), pp.65-4-19.
Nohria, N. and Ghoshal. S. 1994. Differentiated Fit and Shared Values: Alternatives for Managing Headquarters-Subsidiary Relations. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, pp.491-502.
Nunally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, C. 1990. Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, pp.241-265.
Park, S. H. and Y. Luo. 2001. Guanxi and organizational dynamics: Organizational networking in Chinese firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), pp. 455-477.
Parsons, T. 1956. A Sociological Approach to the Theory of Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 1, pp.63-85, 225-239.
Paterson, S. L; Brock, D. M. 2002. The development of subsidiary management research: review and theoretical analysis. International Business Review, Vol.11, pp.139-163.
Penrose, E. 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, NY: Wiley and Sons.
Pearce, R. 1999. The evolution of technology in multinational enterprises: The role of creative subsidiaries. International Business Review. Vol.8, pp. 125-148.
Perlmutter, H. V. 1969. The tortuous evolution of the multinational corporation. Columbia Journal of World Business, 4, pp. 9-18.
Peteraf, M. A. 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), pp. 179-191.
Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. R. 1978. The External Control of Organizations: A resource dependence perspective. N. Y.: Harper and Row.
Picard, J. 1977. Factors of variance in multinational marketing control, in L. G. Mattson and F. Widersheim-Paul (eds.), Recent Research on the Internationalization of Business, Uppsala, Almqvist & Wiksel.
Piercy, N. f. and D. W. Cravens. 1995. The network paradigm and the marketing organization: Developing a new management agenda. European Journal of Marketing, 29(3), pp. 7-34.
Porter, M. E. 1980. Competitive Strategy. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. E. 1985. Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. E. 1986. Competition in Global industries. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Porter, M. E. 1990. The Competitive advantage of Nations. Macmillan, London.
Povan, K. G. 1983. The federation as an interorganizationai linkage network. Academy of Management Review, 8(1), pp.79-gg.
Prahalad, C. K. and Doz, Y. L. 1981. An approach to strategic control in MNCs. Sloan Management Review, 22(Summer), pp.5-13.
Prahalad, C. K. and Y. L. Doz. 1987. The multinational mission- balancing local demands andglobal vision. New York: The Free Press.
Prahalad, C. K. and Hamel. G. 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), pp. 79-81.
Rasmusen E. 1989. Games and information: An introduction to game theory. New Yourk: B. Blackwell.
Richards, M. 2000. Control exercised by U. S. multinationals over their overseas affiliates : Does Location make a difference? Journal of international Management, Vol.6, pp. 105-120.
Roth, K. and Morrison, A. J. 1992. Implementing global strategy: Characteristics of global subsidiary mandates. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(4), pp. 715-3-236.
Sambharya, R. B. 1996. Foreign experience of top management teams and international diversification strategies of U. S. multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal; 17(9), pp.739-746.
Stevenson, H. H. & Jarillo, J. C. 1990. A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11 (summer special issue), pp. 17-27.
Stewart, J. M. 1995. Empowering multinational subsidiaries. Long Range Planning, Vol.28, pp.63-73.
Stopford, J. M. and L. T. Wells. 1972. Managing the multinational enterprise. Basic Books, New York.
Sullivan, D. 1992. Organization in American MNCs: The perspective of the European regional headquarters. Management International Review; 32(3), pp.237-250.
Taggart, J. H. sad Hood, N. 1999. Determinants of Autonomy in multinational corporation subsidiaries. European Management Journal, 17(2), pp.226-236.
Taggart, J. H. 1997. Autonomy and procedural justice: A framework for evaluating subsidiary strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(1), pp.51-76.
Taggart, J. H. 1998. Strategy shifts in MNCs subsidiaries. Strategic Management Journal, 19, pp.663-68 I.
Taggart, J. H. 1999. MNC subsidiary performance, risk, and corporate expectations. International Business Review, 8(2), pp.233-255.
Teece, D. J. 1976. The Multinational Corporation and the Resource Cost of Technology Transfer. Cambridge, MA., Ballinger.
Teece, D. J. 1986. Transaction cost economics and the multinational enterprise. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization.vol.7, pp. 21-45.
Thorelli, H. B. 1986. Networks: Between Markets and Hierarchies. Strategic Management Journal, Vol.7, Iss. 1, pp.37-51.
Tsai, W. and Ghoshal. 1998. Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.41, pp.464-476.
Ulrich, D. & J. B. Barney. 1984. Perspectives in organizations: Resource dependence, efficiency, and population. Academy of Management Review, 9(3), pp.471-481.
Vachani, S. 1999. Clobal diversification's effect on multinational subsidiaries' autonomy. Journal of International Business Studies, 8, pp.535-560.
Vernon, R. 1966. International investments and international trade in the product cycle. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80, pp.190-207.
Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), pp. 171-180.
White, R. E. and T. A. Poynter. 1984. Strategies for foreign- owned subsidiaries in Canada. Business Quarterly, Summer, pp.59-69.
Williamson, O. E. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York, Free Press.
Williamson, O. E. 1981. The Modern Corporation: Origins, Evolution, Attributes. Journal of Economic Literature; 19(4), pp. 1537-1568.
Williamson, O. E. 1985. The New Institutional Economics. New York, Free Press.