鑒於過去國際管理相關文獻，國際化對於績效有相當複雜且異質化的關係。這項研究主旨在了解台灣的產業之國際多樣化和公司績效之間的關係，此外，我們更探討了台灣企業對大陸的依存度對公司績效之影響及產業機會對績效的調節效果，再者，我們使用2001至2012年來自16個不同產業共563家廠商總計6423的觀察樣本，以檢驗這些假設，並使用了兩個不同的統計方法。

此篇研究結果顯示，國際多樣化和公司績效之間的呈現顯著正向S型關係，且視對大陸依賴程度的高低，廠商所產生的績效亦有顯著的差異，依賴程度高的廠商，績效會有谷底反轉之現象，而對大陸依賴程度低的廠商，績效會持續性的穩定成長，直到最後卻直落而下。

Literatures on IB studies have a variety of findings on international performance which suggests the complex and heterogeneous nature of internationalization. In fact, Rugman et al. suggested that the world’s largest firms are not global, but regionally based in terms of breadth and depth of market coverage. This has important implications for various strands of mainstream international business research. However, the impact of international concentration on the performance of international strategy represents the big unanswered question. Therefore, this study addresses this unanswered question and develops four hypotheses that relate the extent of internationalization, and the relative regional concentration to the corporate performance of internationalizing Taiwanese firms.

Using a sample of more than 6423 observations from 563 Taiwanese firms in 16 different industries over 10 years to test these hypotheses, we use two different statistical approaches, panel regression with careful treatment of heterogeneity and multilevel model analysis and find consistently that S shaped performance on internationalization and a weak significance of positive impact of internationalization on performance while China dependency exerts at least short-term negative impact in the internationalizational process of Taiwanese firms. We also find evidences that China dependency is consistent with the perspective of liability of newness.

When firms first begin internationalization process, performance declines first, so does China dependency. But greater levels of internationalization and China dependency are associated with higher performance. As China is a big and fast growing host country, the positive effect will only take place while scale and commitment of Taiwanese investment in China reach a certain high degree. Therefore, China dependency in fact moderates the relationship internationalization has with performance, as pursuing a international strategy with a low dependency on China perform better with the one concurrent with high dependency. However, the higher level of internationalization will soon yield diversification discount to overall performance while high dependency on China finally yield positive outcome.

摘要 i

Abstract ii

Table of Contents iii

List of Table iv

List of Figure v

Chapter One-Introduction 1

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Purpose of the Study 3

1.3 Research Question 3

Chapter Two – Literature Review 4

2.1 Overview 4

2.2 Internationalization and Performance 4

2.3 Industrial opportunity and performance 7

2.4 Dependency as a Contingency 8

2.4.1Dependency and Performance 8

2.4.2 Dependency as a Contingency to internationalization and performance 11

Chapter Three-Data & Method 14

3.1 Framework of This study 14

3.2 Method 15

3.3 Data Collection and Description 18

3.4 Measurements 19

3.4.1 Dependent variable 19

3.4.2 Independent variable 19

3.4.3 Moderator 20

3.4.4 Control Variables 20

Chapter Four – Results 23

4.1 Descriptive statistics 23

4.2 Random Effect / Fixed Effect Analysis – Hausman Specification Test 25

4.3 The Performance and Configuration between internationalization and Dependency 25

4.4 The moderating effect of Dependency on performance - internationalization relationship 28

4.6 MLM analyses 33

Chapter Five – Conclusion 38

5.1 Summary 38

5.2 managerial Implication 40

5.3 Suggestion for future research 41

Reference 42

附錄1 44

Akomea, S. Y., & Adusei, M. (2013). Bank recapitalization and market concentration in Ghana’s banking industry: A Herfindahl-Hirschman Index analysis. Global Journal of Business Research, 7(3), 31-45.

Anderson, C. R., & Zeithaml, C. P. (1984).Stage of the product life cycle, business strategy, and business performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 5-24.

Burdekin, R. C.,& Whited, H. I. (2009). Macroeconomic interdependence between Mainland China and Taiwan: a cross-strait perspective on globalization. Chinese Economy, 42(1), 5-39.

Campa, J. M., & Kedia, S. (2002). Explaining the diversification discount. The Journal of Finance, 57(4), 1731-1762. (2-4)

Canfei, H. (2006). Regional decentralisation and location of foreign direct investment in China.Post-communist economies, 18(1), 33-50.

Chandra, Yanto, Chris Styles, and Ian F Wilkinson. "An opportunity-based

view of rapid internationalization." Journal of International Marketing 20.1 (2012): 74-102.

Daamen, B., Hennart, J., Kim, D., & Park, Y. (2007). Sources of and responses to the liability of foreignness: The case of Korean companies in the Netherlands. Global Economic Review, 36(1), 17-35.

Ebenau, M. (2012).Varieties of Capitalism or Dependency?A Critique of the VoC Approach for Latin America. Competition & Change, 16(3), 206-223.

Ferreira, F. C. M., Goldszmidt, R. G. B., & Csillag, J. M. (2010). The regional concentration of industries and the performance of firms: a multilevel approach. BAR. Brazilian Administration Review, 7(4), 345-361.

Guo, Z., & Cao, L. AN ANALYSIS OF THE DEGREE OF DIVERSIFICATION AND FIRM PERFORMANCE. Business and Finance ESEARCH, 53. (2-4)

Hughes Hallett, A., & Richter, C. (2009). Economics in the backyard: How much convergence is there between China and her special regions?. The World Economy, 32(6), 819-861

Kotabe, M., Srinivasan, S. S., & Aulakh, P. S. (2002). Multinationality and firm performance: The moderating role of R&D and marketing capabilities. Journal of International Business Studies, 79-97.

Li, L., & Qian, G. (2005). Dimensions of international diversification: Their joint effects on firm performance. Journal of Global Marketing, 18(3-4), 7-35.

Li, L., & Qian, G. (2005). Dimensions of international diversification: Their

joint effects on firm performance. Journal of Global Marketing.

Lu, J. W., & Beamish, P. W. (2001). The internationalization and performance of SMEs. Strategic management journal, 22(6‐7), 565-586.

Mansi, S. A., & Reeb, D. M. (2002). Corporate diversification: what gets discounted?.The Journal of Finance, 57(5), 2167-2183. (2-4)

Mezias, J. M. (2002). Identifying liabilities of foreignness and strategies to minimize their effects: The case of labor lawsuit judgments in the United States. Strategic Management Journal, 23(3), 229-244.

Mitra, S., & Bagchi, P. K. (2008). Key success factors, performance metrics, and globalization issues in the third-party logistics (3PL) industry: a survey of North American service providers. Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal. BEM-Bordeaux Management School.

Palich, L. E., Carini, G. R., & Seaman, S. L. (2000). The impact of internationalization on the diversification–performance relationship: a replication and extension of prior research. Journal of Business Research, 48(1), 43-54.

Ruigrok, W., & Wagner, H. (2003). Internationalization and performance: An organizational learning perspective. MIR: Management International Review, 63-83.

Shankar, V., Carpenter, G. S., & Krishnamurthi, L. (1999). The advantages of entry in the growth stage of the product life cycle: an empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 269-276.

Zhang, Y., Li, H., Li, Y., & Zhou, L. (2010). FDI spillovers in an emerging market: the role of foreign firms'' country origin diversity and domestic firms'' absorptive capacity. Strategic Management Journal, 31(9), 969-989.