Политические факторы исходящих прямых иностранных инвестиций из Китая (1991-2017) тема диссертации и автореферата по ВАК РФ 00.00.00, кандидат наук Гаоянь Цююй

• Гаоянь Цююй
• кандидат наук
• 2023

Оглавление диссертации кандидат наук Гаоянь Цююй

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 The research problem and its urgency

1.2 Statement of the research question and hypothesis

1.3 Degree of development of the research problem

1.3.1 MNEs and their OFDI from the Perspective of International Political Economy

1.3.2 "Host Country Political Risk " from the perspective of International Political Economy

1.3.3 The relations between "Host Country Political Risk" and Chinese MNEs from the perspective of International Political Economy

1.3.4 Summary on the relations between "host country political risk" and Chinese OFDI from the perspective of "International Economy"

1.4 The Timeframe of the study

1.5 Methodology

1.5.1 Theoretical and methodological foundations

1.5.2 Research methods employed

1.7 Evaluation of the primary sources

1.8 Research Significance and Innovation

1.8.1 Scientific Novelty

1.8.2 Theoretical Significance

1.8.3 Practical Significance

1.9 Structure of the dissertation

1.10 Primary findings and statements to be defended

1.11 Dissertation Validation

1.12 Coverage of Dissertation Materials in Publications

Chapter 2 Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

2.1 "MNEs" and their OFDI from the Perspective of International Political Economy

2.2 Studies on "Political Risk"

2.2.1 The Evolution of the concept of Political Risk

2.2.2 Sources of Political Risk

2.2.3 Key Elements of Political Risk

2.2.4 The importance of including political risk as one of the most important determinants

of OFDI

2.2.5 "Host Country Political Risk" from the perspective of International Political Economy

2.2.6 The definition of the concept of "host country political risk"

2.2.7 Measurement of Host Country Political Risk

2.3 Studies on Chinese OFDI

2.3.1 The three stages of Chinese OFDI

2.3.2 Features of Chinese OFDI

2.3.3 Review of Studies on Chinese OFDI

2.3.4 Empirical Research on relations between Chinese OFDI and host country political risk

2.4 Comments on the literature: Why have many studies failed to elucidate the impact of host country political risk on Chinese OFDI?

2.5 Summary

Chapter 3 Methodology

3.1 Factors Re-identifying

3.2 Constructing a new composite index as the measurement model that represents the authentic views of Chinese MNEs on the concept of "host county political risk"

3.3 The Constructing Procedure

3.3.1 Selecting the dimensions of the composite index

3.3.2 Selecting component indicators

3.3.3 Weighting the composite index

3.3.4 Calculating the final weights of 15 component indictors and aggregation of the composite index

3.3.5 Validating the robustness of this composite index

3.3.6 List of countries covered by Country Political Risk Index (CPRI)

3.3.7 Categorization

3.4 Summary

Chapter 4 Political Risk Distribution (PRD) of Chinese OFDI from

2006 to

2/209

4.1 Measurement of Chinese OFDI

4.2 Political Risk Distribution of Chinese OFDI from 2006 to

4.2.1 CPRI scores of 139 sampling countries

4.2.2 PRD of Chinese OFDI

4.2.3 Short-Summary: Political Risk Distribution of Chinese OFDI between 2006 and

4.3 Summary

Chapter 5 Country-specific Advantage and the "promotion and

protection system for the investment interests of Chinese MNEs"

5.1 Promotion Policies

5.1.1 Foreign exchange policies

5.1.2 Fiscal and financial policies

5.1.3 Sector-based support policies

5.1.4 Information services

5.2 Protection Policies

5.2.1 Birth and improvement of the protection system for Chinese MNEs' OFDI

5.2.2 Agencies responsible for the protection of Chinese MNEs' OFDI and their functions

5.3 Details of the protection system for Chinese MNEs' OFDI

5.3.1 The legal support system

5.3.2 The OFDI supervision system

5.3.3 Risk prevention mechanisms

5.3.4 Joint emergency coordination mechanism for protecting overseas citizens and enterprises

5.4 Summary

Chapter 6 Conclusion

6.1 Summary of the research

6.2 Policy recommendations: How to better exert the country-specific advantage in the new era to promote the stable growth of Chinese OFDI and protect Chinese MNEs' OFDI interests

6.3 Limitations and future research

3/209

Bibliography

Appendix 1: Survey Questionnaire

Appendix 2 and 3: Information of the 74 valid Respondents

Введение диссертации (часть автореферата) на тему «Политические факторы исходящих прямых иностранных инвестиций из Китая (1991-2017)»

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 The research problem and its urgency

Since 2013, the Chinese government started to purse a new strategic pattern of all-around opening up—the "Belt and Road Initiative". (Xinhua News Agency, 2013). With the implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative, Chinese multinational enterprises (MNEs) have engaged in more—and diversified—foreign direct investment (FDI) activities. By the end of 2017, Chinese MNEs have invested a total number of 2276 large-scale projects worldwide with aggregate investment exceeding US$1.63 trillion. However, as tensions and even conflicts are inevitable in the interdependent relations between MNEs and host country governments because both sides are divergent in goals, interests and understandings on development patters, under the backdrop of rapid internationalization, investment projects of Chinese MNEs are continuously plagued by political factors of Chinese Outward Foreign Direct Investment (OFDI).

It is to be pointed out that "political factors of Chinese OFDI" in this research are not China-related-factors or variables, on the contrary, these are host-country-related factors or variables, in other words, they are specifically relating to "uncertainties confronting Chinese OFDI due to changes in the political environment of the host countries" and are usually interpreted as "host country political risk", a concept that is believed to be one of the most destructive and unpredictable factor which prevents multinational enterprises (including Chinese MNEs) from successfully pursuing their overseas investment interests. In stark contrast to MNEs from western or emerging economics, whose internationalization is driven by economic gains; majority of Chinese OFDI is undertaken by state-owned enterprises (SEOs) with the aim to implement the state's national strategy, in this regard, it would be interesting to know how Chinese MNEs understand "host country political risk". However, quite a number of existing measurements on "host country political risk" were formulated from the standpoint of developed-country MNEs (DMNEs) or

emerging-economy MNEs (EEMNEs) whereas how Chinese MNEs (or Chinese investors) perceive this concept, has been-under-represented (Alon et al, 2017; Lattemann et al., 2017) and lacks enough attention from the academic circle. This is problematic for Chinese MNEs with the needs for OFDI as "biased measurements" on host country political risk that fails to capture the authentic views of Chinese investors on this concept may lead to flaw decision-making and put their investment projects at risk.

As Chinese OFDI continues to expand, in order to fill the above mentioned research gap, it is imperative for think tanks, researchers, and universities to develop new evaluation systems that reflect the authentic understanding of Chinese investors on "host country political risk", provide decision-makers with suggestions based on down-to-earth evaluations and enable Chinese MNEs to better mitigate the adverse effects of risks and improve the quality of their overseas investments. On the other hand, the rise of Chinese MNEs will inevitably affect or even reshape the geopolitical order (in fact, their investment behaviors have already brought changes to this globalized world), therefore, it is crucial to investigate interdependence between Chinese MNEs' investment behaviors and sovereign states and enrich theories of International Political Economic (IPE) from the experiences of Chinese MNEs.

1.2 Statement of the research question and hypothesis

The aim of this research is to find out the political factors of Chinese OFDI and explore the role of political factors in the decision-making and investment strategies of Chinese MNEs. The research question is stated as the following:

What factors in host countries are perceived as "political factors" by Chinese investors when investing overseas and how will host-country-related political factors impact the decision-making and investment strategies of Chinese MNEs?

In order to answer this research question, the following objectives have been

set:

—Disseminate a questionnaire among senior managers with management experience of overseas projects, Chinese scholars in the field of OFDI and government officials who are responsible for the making of FDI-related polices to see what factors in a host countries are considered "political" by Chinese investors and how big their impacts can be.

—On the based of the identified political factors in a host country, develop a new assessment technique that reflects the authentic views and understanding of Chinese investors on the concept of "host country political risk" and divide sampling economics into "high-risk" countries, "moderate-risk" countries and "low risk countries".

—Apply this new evaluation system to China Global Investment Tracker dataset to compare the proportion of Chinese OFDI absorbed by economies with different levels of political risk in the years between 2006 to 2017 and find explanations behind the political distribution of Chinese OFDI from China's FDI-related polices since 2000s using theories on "state policies and their implications for the internationalization of MNEs" from the standpoint of International Political Economy.

It's widely recognized that Chinese OFDI is predominantly undertaken by state-owned enterprises (SOEs), guided by the Chinese government. This leads to the inference that the primary impetus behind the internationalization of Chinese MNEs is to implement the state's macro-control and to fulfill China's national strategic objectives, in this regard, political gains are likely to supersede economic benefits in the strategic calculations of Chinese MNEs. Therefore, some scholars suggest that Chinese MNEs are "risk insensitive" and may not allow "host country political risk" to obstruct their investment decisions. In addition, it is noteworthy that the the Chinese government provides a variety of "safety nets" to motivate Chinese MNEs to seek overseas investment opportunities. Drawing from these observations, the author anticipates a propensity for Chinese OFDI to be concentrated in countries with higher political risk levels and proposes the following hypothesis:

"By proportion (or percentage), countries with higher political risk levels are more likely to be the investment destination of Chinese MNEs".

If this hypothesis is verified, that means Chinese MNEs are insensitive to the risks caused by political factors in host countries where they make investments, in this regard, the author may conclude that "political factors" are not crucial for the location choice of Chinese MNEs, and the role of "political factors" could therefore be neglected in the decision-making and investment strategies of Chinese MNEs.

The research object is political factors that can cause uncertainties to the investment interests of Chinese MNEs when investing in a host country.

The research topic is the influence of political factors in a host country (host country political risk) on decision-making and investment strategies of Chinese MNEs.

1.3 Degree of development of the research problem

The existing literature on the research problem can be divided into three groups. This categorization is decided by the scope of this study: the relations between "host country political risk" and Chinese OFDI from the perspective of "International Economy".

1.3.1 MNEs and their OFDI from the Perspective of International Political Economy

In the eyes of International Relations scholars, international investment booms are primarily the result of multinational enterprises (MNEs) growing into omnipotent giants. MNEs' growth and their expanding global influence has brought drastic changes to production and exchange patterns. The emergence of MNEs into the international community has posed challenges to sovereign states (Vernon, 1971; Vernon, 1975; Strange, 1997). The age of state-actors and non-state actors coexist has come (Keohane & Nye, 2012). However, internationalization theories developed from the perspective of International Economy can no longer fully capture or explain the "interdependence" relations between MNEs and sovereign states. In order to fill this "theoretical vacuum" , a new sub-discipline within the IR discipline-International Political Economy emerged: In fact, the rise of MNEs in the international system pushed IR scholars to broaden their research scope by shifting from "interactions between sovereign states" to "relationship between all sorts of political entities ('polities'), including international organizations, MNEs, societies and citizens" (Keohane & Nye, 2012). MNEs, whose production and economic activities are remolding the basic structure and operation pattern of contemporary world economy and politics, naturally become the research focus of IR scholars, and then, many theoretical breakthroughs have been made in the past decades, making IPE not only a fully-fledged but also cutting-edge sub-discipline within IR (Watson, 2005; Cohen, 2008; Paquin, 2016; Frieden et al., 2017).

In the era when sovereign states and MNEs coexist, analysis of MNEs is primarily conducted from two different approaches from the standpoint of International Political Economy. The first approach focuses on the interaction mechanism and changes in the balance of power between MNEs and sovereign states and three mainstream theories of "interdependence" emerged: Liberal, Realist, and Marxist (Watson, 2005; Cohen, 2008; Paquin, 2016; Frieden et al., 2017). The second approach on MNEs centers around "state policies and their implications for MNEs", research in this field not only provide theoretical frameworks, but also solid evidence to justify the use of "state power" to encourage MNE internationalization and to safeguard their foreign investment interests (Watson, 2005; Cohen, 2008; Keohane, 2009; Paquin, 2016; Frieden et al., 2017; Gwynn, 2016; Keohane & Milner, 2017; ).

1.3.2 "Host Country Political Risk" from the perspective of International Political Economy

From the standpoint of International Political Economy, the relationship between MNEs and sovereign states is "inter-dependent". MNEs have enormous wealth, a vast array of economic, research, and development power, and sales networks that span globally. Nonetheless, no matter how large they are, an MNE remains to be an enterprise and can neither be isolated from sovereign states nor completely steer the developments of political events. The reason is because the interests of MNEs are often inevitably exposed to various political events. Divergences or divisions in goals, interests as well as understandings of development patterns made tensions and even conflicts unavoidable in the inter-dependent relations between MNEs and host country governments and failure to reconcile such "misunderstanding" may lead to escalation in their relations and may even result in "political events". This is where "host country political risk" originates from.

Considering that the political environment in host countries is rather volatile while "host country political risk" is the most substantial obstacle that hinders MNEs from successfully pursuing the their own interest and overseas interests of their home countries, it is therefore quite necessary for the home country governments, as the

protector of the overseas assets of MNEs headquartered there, to introduce a series of national policies and sometimes intervene with state power to support the internationalization of their MNEs to overcome the adverse impact of "host country political risk" on their investments (Mastanduno, 2008; Rugraff & Hansen, 2011; Hendrickson, 2014). This "state-backed internationalization" approach is advantageous as it aligns the interests of MNEs with those of their home countries, which not only provides MNEs with resources to accomplish more efficient internationalization, but also ensures the safety of their overseas assets, and most importantly, it facilitates the expansion of overseas interests of the home countries.

Host country political risk is a complex multidimensional phenomenon that can arise from various sources. Based on previous research (Robock, 1971; Kobrin et al., 1980; Doh and Teegen, 2002; Getz, and Oetzel, 2009; Jiménez, 2010; Jiménez, 2011; and Gehlbach & Keefer, 2012; De Fouloy, 2014; Jiménez et al., 2014; Frynas & Stephens, 2015; Financial Times 2016), this dissertation defined host country political risk as "uncertainties confronting MNEs' OFDI (owing to) changes in the political environment of the host country" (Alon et al, 2006; Alon and Herbert, 2009; Jiménez, 2010; Jiménez, 2011; Alon et al, 2013; Jiménez et al., 2014; Lattemann et al., 2017). The definition has three key points. The first is the scope of risks, which mainly refers to uncertainties in the host country's political environment attributable to the acts of its authorities. The second relates to the consequences of risks. Uncertainties bring changes (positive or negative) to the operating environment of MNEs with impacts on their operations. The third involves risk factors, which mainly refer to changes in the political climate, including the institutional, business, and security environment. Each of these dimensions is composed of a variety of factors. Changes in these factors will cause changes in the host country's political environment.

Even though the definitions of political risk's concept and theoretical boundaries are still inadequate and disjointed, scholars managed to reach a consensus that political risk can be measured and estimated. To provide better forecasts for multinational entities, various political risk analysis techniques have been constructed

by different companies, organizations, and research institutions, with rating system being the most commonly used technique. There are three most-widely used aggregate measures of host country political risk: International Country Risk Guide (ICRG), produced by the PRS Group, includes three categories of risk: political, financial and economic. The political risk rating, which accounts for 50% of the overall index, includes 12 weighted variables covering political and social attributes. Another well established assessment is the WGI measurement for over 200 countries, in which six governance factors each given the same weight, provide cross-country broad measures of various governance indicators across space and time. The third widely-accepted assessment, the Economic Freedom Index (EFI), incorporates 10 equally weighted major variables to assess the ease of conducting economic activity at the country level for 186 economies. The above mentioned models all share some basic features, namely, the reliance on the judgment of country experts and the subjectivity of the weights assigned to risk factors and indicators. However, common methodological flaws, such as inclusion of irrelevant variables, arbitrary weighting among relevant proxies and problems of independence, objectivity, and transparency have been widely criticized by scholars.

1.3.3 The relations between "Host Country Political Risk" and Chinese MNEs from the perspective of International Political Economy

Foreign direct investment (FDI) is a type of cross-border investment flow along with portfolio flows, debt flows, reserves, and other flows. In contrast to short-term portfolio flows or debt flows with no-ownership changes, FDI refers to the international investment made by one economy's resident entity in the business operations of an entity resident in a different economy, with the intention of establishing a long-term interest (IMF, 1993; WTO, 1996). In FDI, investors have an interest in the ownership or management of their investments. This interest in the

management or ownership differentiates FDI from investment in stocks, bonds, or other financial instruments (World Bank, 2004; OECD, 2008).

The most significant difference between Chinese OFDI and FDI from developed-countries or emerging-economies is the motivation mechanism. Chinese OFDI is almost entirely led and driven by the Chinese government (Pei & Fan, 2010). In other words, the Chinese government encourages and pushes Chinese MNEs with FDI needs to engage in FDI in other countries. In this process, national interests override the commercial interests of companies. Therefore, the benefits of Chinese OFDI are the macroeconomic interests of the entire state; their microeconomic interests are mere by-products. This is in stark contrast to MNEs from developed-countries or emerging-economies, which invest overseas for capital gains (to maximize the interest of the company). Their motivation, typically referred to as "maximized interests of companies", is obviously not applicable to Chinese SOEs, which are the major undertakers of Chinese OFDI. As China becomes more globalized and integrates into the international community, its overseas and economic interests have become an increasingly important part of its national interests (Wang, 2009; Men & Zhong, 2009; Li, 2010; Li, 2012). As such, overseas economic interests have become the core of China's overseas interests in quantity and quality. China's overseas economic interests refer to the financial interests owned by China and Chinese legal and natural persons, existing in areas beyond the jurisdiction of China and protected by international contracts, local regulations, or regulations of China (ibit). Generally, China's overseas economic interests include five aspects: full engagement in global economic governance, international trade, OFDI security, security of transportation channels, and safety of employees (ibit). The most important among them is the OFDI interests of Chinese companies.

Apart from the complexity, ambiguity and instability in the political environment where Chinese MNEs make their direct investments, two other reasons also made tensions or even "conflicts" between Chinese MNEs and the host country governments inevitable: First, Chinese OFDI is almost entirely driven by the Chinese government while state-owned enterprises in various industries have undertaken

majority of the investments. Chinese MNEs often benefit from preferential policies as well as other forms of support from the Chinese government, which, raises raises the suspicion of "unfair competition" and "state-intervention" by the host country. Another reason is the unique "vertical managerial relationship" made subsidiaries overseas highly dependent on their parent companies headquartered in China, making their interests rarely overlap with those of the host country. Under these circumstances, the economic welfare brought by Chinese MNEs to the host countries tend to be overlooked or neglected. On the contrary, host country governments are more likely to consider Chinese OFDI as a means of Chinese government's efforts to enhance its economic and military strengths or achieve other political goals, thus introducing stricter regulatory policies and imposing greater institutional pressure on Chinese OFDI.

1.3.4 Summary on the relations between "host country political risk" and Chinese OFDI from the perspective of "International Economy"

To summarize, it is theoretically "biased" to examine the "internationalization of Chinese MNEs", especially the topic of relations between "host country political risk" and Chinese OFDI from the perspective of "International Economy". With the continuous growth of Chinese OFDI worldwide, it therefore becomes worthwhile to consider analyzing the "interdependence between Chinese MNEs and sovereign states" by switching to the standpoint of "International Political Economy". Considering that majority of Chinese OFDI were undertaken by state-owned-enterprises (SEOs) from different sectors and these enterprises operate under direct guidance of State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council (SASAC), it is therefore presumed that their investment preferences or investment strategies in the face of investment destinations with different political risk levels, could, to a great extant reflect how various departments responsible for the internationalization of Chinese MNEs in the Chinese government perceive host-

country-related political factors. Therefore, in order to find out what factors in host countries are considered "political" by Chinese investors, it is worthy-well doing survey research among senior managers with management experience of overseas projects, Chinese scholars in the field of OFDI and government officials who are responsible for the making of FDI-related polices. In addition to that, in order to understand the role of the political factors in the decision-making and investment strategies of Chinese MNEs, it is necessary to design a new measurement on "host country political risk" that reflects the authentic views of Chinese investors on this concept, applies it to more accurate database on Chinese OFDI, demonstrate the political risk distribution of Chinese OFDI in countries with different risk levels and explore the reasons behind.

1.4 The Timeframe of the study

As for the timespan of this dissertation, initially, the author held an ambition in his mind and intended to cover a period of the last 30 years, however, two obstacles prevented the author from doing this: The first obstacle is that from 1990s till early 2000s, the volume of Chinese OFDI was rather small and Chinese MNEs were still going through "reforms", they were not powerful enough to venture overseas as MNEs from western or some developing countries could do, this period may not be worthy of research. The second obstacle is that in the year 2018, when many Chinese MNEs have become important actors (many of them grew into World's top 500) in this interdependent world, trade war broke out and the China—US relations deteriorated, exacerbated by the pandemic as well as suspicions of "creating debt trap and over-reliance on China" and criticisms of "bringing corruptions" rather than "job opportunities", the entire world tend to view Chinese OFDI not as "opportunities" but as "threats" and the good momentum for Chinese OFDI was interrupted by various political events and came into the period of "adjustment" showing completely different features. Amid this rather volatile period, Chinese OFDI from 2018 onwards needs a separate and far-more in-depth study that could be my future research focus

in the next 5 years. Therefore, the author slightly changed the title of this dissertation and concentrate his research more on a "stable period" (2006 to 2017) when Chinese OFDI witnessed substantial growth meanwhile the entire world was relatively friendly towards Chinese MNEs, however, a review on Chinese OFDI from early 1990s was also briefly elaborated by the author.

1.5 Methodology

Research Thread

Research Steps

Research Contents

Research Methodology

Stepl

Relations between host country political risk and Chinese OFDI

Comparative analysis

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Identification on factors that reflects Chinese MNE's view on the concept of host country political Risk

Construction of Country Politcal Risk Index

Analyze Political Risk

Distribution of Chinese OFDI from 2006 to 2017

Survey and Questionaire

Principal Component Analysis

Quantitaive Methods

Step 5

Summarzie mechanisms adopted by the Chinese Government to promote and Protect Chinese OFDI

Document Analysis

Step 6

Policy Proposals

Policy Analysis

1.5.1 Theoretical and methodological foundations

The author understands that it is rather difficult to find out these factors directly and almost impossible to "measure their impacts". However, the concept of "host country political risk" serves as a "bridge" and helps the author achieve the aim of this research. The first reason, as stated previously, is that among all risks that MNEs (including Chinese MNEs) face today, "host country political risk" is widely believed to be the most destructive and unpredictable factor which prevents them from successfully pursuing their overseas investment interests (it should be regarded as political issues rather than an economic one) meanwhile the relations between the location choice of Chinese MNEs and hosts country political risk has already been extensively studied in theoretical and empirical terms by Chinese and foreign scholars. The second reason is that extensive studies have shown that even though the perception or understanding of "host country political risk" varies from MNEs to MNEs and depends largely upon the environment these MNEs grown up from, a consensus has been reached by scholars that it is "measurable". Most importantly, "host country political risk" are the results of tensions or even conflicts between MNEs and sovereign states that can not be easily reconciled because both sides pursue different goals and have different understanding on international investment activities. This describes a situation of "hostility" between state and non-state actors in this globalized world and indicates that theories of "complex interdependence" in International Political Economy (IPE) should be the theoretical foundation of this research. In this regard, starting with the concept of "host country political risk" is a pragmatic approach for the author because it helps iron out the huge gap between the research question and research design and most importantly, it provides this research with a solid theoretical foundation and endows this dissertation with IR-nature.

1.5.2 Research methods employed

By narrowing down the abstract research question to the discussion on the relations between "hosts country political political risk" and Chinese OFDI, this research becomes more feasible. However, the author decides not to follow the path of an economist by running various regression models and interpret the results using theories from International Economy. On the contrary, the author decides to conduct this research from the perspective of an IR scholar. The first reason is that theories of International Economy may not be sufficient to explain why Chinese MNEs, who does not seem to enjoy any "comparative advantages" as their counterparts from developed or some developing countries do, could still venture overseas, and expand globally. The second theoretical drawback is that theories of International Economy cannot explain why the internationalization of MNEs would cause tensions and even conflicts between MNEs and sovereign states (especially host countries) neither. The third, as well as the most underlying reason is that when conducting empirical research, many scholars often use existing measurements on "host country political risk"; however, these indexes either fail to capture the multi-dimensional characteristics of this concept or their assessment methodology are inconsistent and flawed; therefore, they are unable to reach a consensus on relations between host country political risk and Chinese OFDI.

By comprehensively using the following research methods, the author managed to ensure the the reliability of the research outcomes:

1) First-hand data collection

In order to find out the political factors of Chinese OFDI, the author employs

survey strategy (Questionnaire Survey). The author's working and internship

experience in China's MNEs, compounded by his connections in various government

agencies, MNEs, think tanks and universities in China not only helped him in

forming, refining and validity-checking of the questionnaire made by the author but

also helped him reach out to the right people (the representative sample), successfully

get feedbacks so that their understanding on concept of "host country political risk"

19/209

could be collected (primary data). The author's good network not only guarantees that the samples chosen by the author is representative of the target population and ensures the quality of the data collected. In addition to that, T-test has been run to delete all irrelevant variables and the author managed to collect 15 variables that most closely related to Chinese companies' views on "host country political risk" (host-country-related political factors).

2) Composite index development

On the base of the 15 identified variables, the author decides to construct a new composite index as the measurement model that represents the authentic views of Chinese MNEs on the concept of "host county political risk" because composite indices are ideal for the measurement of abstract concepts by combining a plurality of variables. To avoid and mitigate the problem of arbitrary weighting in the construction of composite indices, the author employed principal component analysis (PCA) in the calculation of the weights of component indicators of this composite index. Two methods (missing data treatment and correlation) were used to test the robustness of the newly created composite index and it was concluded that this index is robust and adequate for use in further analysis.

3) Data-analysis

In order to measure the role of political factors in the investment strategies of Chinese MNEs, the author applies the newly constructed Country Political Risk Index (CPRI) to a more accurate measurement on Chinese OFDI—CGIT dataset. Exploratory data analysis approach has been used to compare the proportions/ percentages of Chinese OFDI absorbed by low, moderate and high risk countries, this helps reveal the distribution of Chinese OFDI in host countries with different risk levels. As the validity and reliability of both CGIT dataset and CPRI index have been checked, it can be judged that the outcomes obtained in this research is objective and impartial.

4) Document-analysis

In order to find out why Chinese OFDI is proven to be concentrated more in "moderate" and "low" risk countries, the author systematically analyzed FDI-related legal documents, policies, and regulations concerning by the Chinese government since 2000. For various reasons, including language barriers and a lack of familiarity with the undertones and narratives in China's official documents, these policies have not received enough attention from the academic circle. The author made full use of his language advantage as well as familiarity with the discourse, narrative and undertone of governmental documents and made a detailed summary of FDI-related policies from a semi-insider's view. This not only strengthen the credibility of this research but also facilitates the author's elaborations on how "promotional polices" help Chinese MNEs form comprehensive advantages to invest abroad and how "protection polices" empower Chinese MNEs in the face of the adverse effect of host country political risk.

1.7 Evaluation of the primary sources

Primary source in this study are divided into seven groups as presented in the following:

1) IPE theories on interdependent relations between sovereign states and MNEs, research papers on political risk and empirical studies on Chinese OFDI.

2) Literature concerning the development of composite index.

3) Existing political risk assessment models such as WGI, ICRG and EFI database.

4) A more accurate firm-level measurement on Chinese OFDI—the the China Global Investment Tracker database (CGIT database)

5) Laws made by Chinese government with the aim to protect the investment interest of Chinese MNEs.

6) Policies and regulations made by various Chinese departments responsible for the promoting Chinese OFDI as well as protecting the investment interest of Chinese MNEs since 2000.

7) First-hand data on 74 respondents as well their understanding on "host country political risk".

1.8 Research Significance and Innovation

1.8.1 Scientific Novelty

First, this research focuses on a topic that has not been fully investigated. The study offers a glimpse of "how China achieves the objectives of its foreign policy and other national strategies via the means of OFDI".

Second, well-designed research methods has been appropriately employed to address the research question. "Using mathematics to explore IR questions" is a trend among many IR researchers, in this research, the author has carefully used quantitative methods in gathering and analyzing data, doing his best to fit this method with the research design and have reaped rather effective outcomes: the use of standardized questionnaire was proven to be relatively successful in identifying "host-country-related political factors" from Chinese MNEs from senior managers with management experience of overseas projects, Chinese scholars in the field of OFDI and government officials who are responsible for the making of FDI-related polices; while composite index construction and statistic analysis are also instrumental in addressing the author's research question of how "political factors" have impacted the distribution of Chinese OFDI and the location choice of Chinese MNEs during the last decade.

Third, this research offers a better understanding on China's foreign policy and other national strategies and indicates new policy-related-sources and directions for future studies. The author has made full use of his language advantage and targeted on FDI-related policies issued by the Chinese government since 2000. These policies, although not directly related to China's foreign policy or other China's grand national strategies, concerns Chinese MNEs whose responsibility is to carry out China's foreign policy via economic means. Making a detailed summary of the polices that lacks enough attention from academic circle and dividing them into "promotion" and "protection" categories gave the author a chance to further elaborate how the promotional polices help Chinese MNEs form comprehensive advantages to start

internationalization meanwhile how protection polices empower Chinese MNEs in the face of the adverse effect of host country political risk in this research.

Fourth, drawing from the experience of Chinese MNEs, this research enriches theories of International Political Economy (IPE). International Political Economy studies the interactions among state-actors (sovereign states) and between non-state actors (MNEs, international organizations or individuals) in the world system. This research contributes to the discussion on the interdependent relations between Chinese MNEs and sovereign states, especially how political factors and state-policies influences the location choice of Chinese MNEs when facing host country with different political risk levels. In this regard, this research adds new knowledge to IR studies.

1.8.2 Theoretical Significance

Theoretical significance of this dissertation are twofold:

First, the author addressed his research questions and proves that"political factors" are crucial in the investment strategies of Chinese MNEs. Moreover, evidenced by excellent overall investment performance, this research demonstrated that state-policies are also indispensable for the location choice of Chinese MNEs.

Second, drawing from the experience of Chinese MNEs, this research enriches IPE theories by adding more knowledge to the field of "implications of state-policies on the internationalization of MNEs".

1.8.3 Practical Significance

Among the risks facing Chinese MNEs today, "host country political risk" is the most destructive and unpredictable factor preventing them from pursuing their overseas investment interests successfully. Therefore, it is imperative for think tanks, researchers and universities to develop new evaluation systems that reflect the real understanding of Chinese enterprises on "host country political risk" and provide decision makers with informed guidance based on their more practical assessment techniques. This will certainly enable Chinese MNEs to better mitigate the adverse

24/209

effects of risks and improve the quality of their overseas investments. Existing measurements on political risk, however, do not meet these requirements or demands due to their drawbacks and flaws. By filling this gap, the practical significance this dissertation are threefold:

First, this research deepens Chinese government's understanding on the concept of "host country political risk" and therefore has the potential to offer more targeted FDI-related suggestions for various ministries and departments responsible for the Internationalization of Chinese MNEs. This will definitely help China more effectively achieve objectives of its foreign policy and other national strategies via the means of OFDI" .

Second, up until today, the Country Political Risk Index (CPRI) developed by the author has accumulated political risk scores and risk levels of 139 countries from 2006 until now. This database could be used by academics, think tanks, companies and government agents for research, consultancy, or as a reference for decision-making and policy-improvement.

Third, the author has also set up a database on China's FDI-related policies (open-sources) since 2000. Via fair collaborations, the author is willing to share this database with experts, institutions, companies or personals for academic or other purposes so that they have a better understanding on China's foreign policy and other national strategies.

1.9 Structure of the dissertation

In this thesis, host country political risk is defined as "uncertainties confronting MNEs' OFDI owing to changes in the political environment of the host country".

The author divided risk factors that can cause changes in a country's political environment and affect Chinese MNEs' investment in the country from three dimensions: institution, business, and security. The structure of the dissertation is presented in the following six chapters:

Chapter 1 introduces the research background, question, and hypothesis and defines the core concepts of "Chinese OFDI" and "Host Country Political Risk"

Chapter 2 provides a comprehensive review of the literature on MNEs from the perspective of International Political Economy, focusing on the various theoretical frameworks that have been used to explain the behavior of MNEs in the global market. The chapter then explores the root causes of host country political risk, drawing on theories of the interdependence between sovereign states and MNEs. Finally, the chapter summarizes previous studies on the relationship between host country political risk and Chinese OFDI, highlighting the need for a new measurement index that reflects Chinese companies' views on host country political risk.

Chapter 3 describes the methodology used to construct the Country Political Risk Index, including the survey questionnaire distributed to Chinese researchers and professional managers with experience in OFDI project management. The chapter then explains how the index was constructed based on the survey results, including the primary indicators and sub-indicators used in the index, as well as the weights assigned to each indicator.

Chapter 4 presents the findings of the study, using the Country Political Risk Index to analyze the distribution of Chinese MNEs' FDI in countries with different levels of political risk. The chapter concludes that Chinese MNEs take host country political risk into consideration when making investment decisions, and that this behavior is consistent with MNEs from developed and developing countries.

Chapter 5 examines China's OFDI policies from the perspective of International Political Economy, focusing on the Promotion and Protection system for the investment interests of Chinese MNEs. The chapter analyzes how the Chinese government has used this system to guide and protect Chinese companies' OFDI activities, and how this has helped to offset the adverse effects of political risk changes in host countries. The chapter concludes that China's Promotion and Protection system has been effective in promoting safe and sustainable OFDI.

Chapter 6 summarizes the key findings of the study and proposes policy recommendations for promoting Chinese OFDI and protecting the interests of Chinese MNEs in the new era. The chapter also acknowledges the limitations of the study and suggests directions for future research.

1.10 Primary findings and statements to be defended

1) Primary Findings No.1: 15 Host-country-related variables are considered as "political factors" in the eyes of Chinese investors when investing abroad and they each pose different impact on the investment projects of Chinese MNEs.

15 host-country-related variables were identified as "political factors" by Chines MNEs (or Chines investors) when investing abroad. These factors include contract viability (CV), payment delays (PD), profit repatriation (RP), investment freedom (IF), exchange rate risk (ERR), government utility (GU), legislative strength (LS), popular support (PS), property rights protection (PRP), government integrity (GI), ethnic tensions (ET), external conflict (EC), military in politics (MP) and religious tensions (RT).

After calculating the final weights of each "factor" (each component indicator) in Country Political Risk Index (CPRI), their influence on Chinese investment projects can be understood: ET, weighted the highest (9.9%), is found to impose the most severe impact ; RT ranked second, weighted at 7.7%. CV ranked third, with a weight of 7.6%, followed by LS and IC, both weighted 7.5%. IF, PD, and EC weighted from 7.1% to 7.4%. PRP, PS, PR, MP, ERR, and GU were weighted between 3.9% and 6.4%, indicating minimal impact.

2) Primary Findings No.2: Regarding the political risk distribution of Chinese OFDI in the years between 2006 to 2017, the Chinese MNEs have shown risk-aversion characteristic.

By applying Country Political Risk Index (CPRI) to a more accurate

measurement on Chinese OFDI (the CGIT database), the author compares the proportions (or percentages) of Chinese OFDI absorbed by low, moderate and high risk countries during the period of 2006 to 2017. It is found that majority of Chinese OFDI (around 70%) is concentrated in medium and low risk countries, although Chinese MNEs do not reject investing in high risk countries. The Chinese OFDI have shown the characteristic of "risk-aversion". This finding not only refutes the author's hypothesis but also contradicts some scholars' argument on the "political risk

insensibility" characteristic of Chinese MNEs during their internationalization because the result shows that political risk levels of the investment destination are taken into serious consideration by the decision-makers and this is consistent with MNEs from western and some developing countries, in this regard, in the face of the adverse effects of "host country political risk", Chinese MNEs are no exception.

3) Primary Findings No. 3: Regarding the political risk distribution of Chinese OFDI in the years between 2006 to 2017, the Chinese MNEs have exhibited strong "awareness of risk prevention".

Another interesting finding also draws the author's attention: from 2006 to

2017, Chinese MNEs have exhibited strong "awareness of risk prevention" because among 2785 large-scale projects invested by the Chinese MNEs, 92% were rated as "successful" (around 2547 projects). The author argues that the excellent overall investment performance (92% of large-scale projects were believed to be "successful") of Chinese MNEs showcased the power of state-policy (China's OFDI policies) in ensuring sustainable growth of Chinese OFDI and protecting the investment interests of Chinese MNEs abroad. Here, state-policy encompasses not only the policies enacted by economic-related ministries, such as the Ministry of Commerce, National Development and Reform Commission, and State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, but also a wide-ranging "policy package" established by multiple ministries and departments, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Public Security and etc. Together, these policies form a comprehensive network or "system" that facilitates and safeguards the investment interests of Chinese MNEs.

4) Statement to be defended: Both political factors (host-country-related political factors) and state-polices are crucial in the decision-making and investment strategies of Chinese MNEs.

1.11 Dissertation Validation

1) The 1st ASEAN Think Tank Forum of Peking University 2017—working paper titled "Impact of Political Risk on Chinese OFDI in Southeast Asia from 206 to 2015" accepted for forum.

2) The 3rd Summer Workshop of Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 2018—invited for oral presentation; title of the report: "Impact of Political Risk on Chinese OFDI from 2006 to 2017".

3) The 4th International Symposium Earth Observation for Arid and Semi-arid Environments, Chinese Academy of Science 2018—invited for oral presentation; title of the report: "Political Risk Distribution of Chinese OFDI from 2006 to 2017".

4) VI International Scientific Conference of Young Orientalists on the theme "East Asia in a Changing World"), Institute of China and Contemporary Asia of the RAS 2018 —invited for oral presentation; title of the report: "Political Risk distribution of Chinese Outward Foreign Direct Investment".

1.12 Coverage of Dissertation Materials in Publications

1. GAOYAN, QY. Political Risk Distribution of Chinese Outward Foreign Direct Investment // International Journal of Emerging Markets. 2021. Vol. 16. No. 6. https://www.emerald.eom/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJOEM-06-2018-0344/full/ html

2. GAOYAN, QY. Protection System for Investment Interests of Chinese Enterprises Abroad // World Economy and International Relations. 2022. Vol. 66. No. 9. Pp. 82-89. https://www.imemo.ru/en/publications/periodical/meimo/archive/ 2022/9-t-66/china-domestic-and-foreign-policies/protection-system-for-investment-interests-of-chinese-enterprises-abroad

3. GUO, J. & GAOYAN, QY, A New Connotation of Political Development as a Tool for Analysis of Political Processes in China // Polis. Political Studies. 2022. No. 5. Pp. 151-164. https://www.politstudies.ru/article/5948

4. ZHANG, SH., GUO, J., GAOYAN, QY. Development of a National School of Political Science in China // World Economy and International Relations. 2020. Vol. 64. No. 11. Pp. 84-95. https://www.imemo.ru/en/publications/periodical/meimo/ archive/2020/11-t-64/non-western-political-theories/development-of-a-national-school-of-political-science-in-china

5. GAOYAN, QY. Distribution of political risks in China's foreign direct investment (empirical study based on data from 2006-2017) // Humanitarian sciences. Bulletin of the Financial University. 2019. Vol. 9. No. 4. Pp. 126-135. https://doi.org/ 10.26794/2226-7867-2019-9-4-126-135

Заключение диссертации по теме «Другие cпециальности», Гаоянь Цююй

Chapter 6 Conclusion

6.1 Summary of the research

The aim of this research is to find out the political factors of Chinese OFDI and explore the role of political factors in the decision-making and investment strategies of Chinese MNEs. To operationalize this research, the author disseminated a standardized questionnaire among senior managers with experience in overseas projects, Chinese scholars in the field of outbound foreign direct investment (OFDI), and government officials responsible for FDI-related policies, in order to gauge their understanding of the concept of "host country political risk". The respondents, representative samples of the target population, were asked to select variables that best reflected Chinese multinational enterprises' (MNEs) understanding of "host country political risk" from 34 indicators developed by authoritative political risk assessment institutions. The author then developed a new evaluation model by incorporating 15 identified host-country-related political factors as perceived by Chinese investors. This new assessment model is called "Country Political Risk Index" (CPRI), it reflects the authentic views and understanding of Chinese MNEs on the concept of "host country political risk", and categorizes all sampling economies into three groups: "high-risk", "moderate-risk", and "low-risk" countries. Next, the author applied the CPRI to a more accurate dataset on Chinese OFDI—the China Global Investment Tracker. By comparing the proportions of Chinese OFDI absorbed by low, moderate, and high-risk countries from 2006 to 2017, the study revealed the role of "political factors" in the internationalization of Chinese MNEs. Moreover, by analyzing the location choices of Chinese MNEs in the face of investment destinations with different political risk levels (measured in proportion of investment volumes), the study found that Chinese MNEs exhibited a risk-averse characteristic. This finding contradicts the author's hypothesis and refutes some scholars' research on the "political risk insensibility" characteristic of Chinese MNEs during their internationalization. The study also observed that Chinese MNEs demonstrated a strong "awareness of risk prevention", which can be explained by FDI-related

policies issued by the Chinese government. Through a systematic investigation of laws, policies, and rules concerning FDI crafted by the Chinese government since 2000, the author identified four categories of promotional policies: foreign exchange, fiscal, taxation, and financial; industry-specific support; and information services. The Chinese government's policies helped Chinese MNEs form comprehensive OFDI advantages for internationalization, successfully guided Chinese OFDI into appropriate industries and countries, and minimized the trial-and-error cost of their foreign direct investment decisions. At the same time, the coordinative effect of the four-dimensional protection system consisting of laws and rules, regulatory policies, preventive measures, and emergency mechanisms empowered Chinese MNEs in the face of adverse effects caused by changes in host country political risk. This provided more effective protection of their investment interests and ensured the continuous growth of Chinese OFDI. In conclusion, the study highlights the crucial role of "political factors" and "state policies" in the investment strategies of Chinese MNEs.

6.2 Policy recommendations: How to better exert the country-specific advantage in the new era to promote the stable growth of Chinese OFDI and protect Chinese MNEs' OFDI interests.

The country-specific advantage of Chinese MNEs in OFDI has pulling and protection effects. From the perspective of policy-making, however, the "promotion and protection system for the investment interests of Chinese MNEs" is not perfect. On the one hand, to boost Chinese MNEs' OFDI, or exert the pulling effect of the country-specific advantage, the author formulated the following suggestions.

(1) Promulgate and improve the Law on Promoting Outward Direct Investment in due course.

The Policy System Promoting Chinese MNEs' OFDI is a collection of administrative regulations and departmental rules. Many state organs, including National Development and Reform Commission, Ministry of Finance, State Administration of Foreign Exchange, People's Bank of China, State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, State Taxation Administration, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, and even Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, had been involved in the preparation of policies and regulations concerning OFDI in the past three decades. When formulating policies, various departments prioritized their own interests. In practice, the inconsistency and lack of overall coordination by the state have led to difficulties in coordination and ineffective implementation. To address the problem of the lack of centralized coordination and regulation by the state in OFDI, the government must promulgate the Law on Promoting Outward Direct Investment in due course, to state the supportive and encouraging attitude of the Chinese government toward enterprises' OFDI, with provisions on the applicable scope, adjusted subjects, types of OFDI, matters for approval, and investment protection.

(2) Set government agencies for investment promotion at different levels and their functions.

At present, the Chinese central government has three specialized OFDI

promotion agencies, which are public institutions at the same level: Investment

144/209

Promotion Agency of Ministry of Commerce, China Council for International Investment Promotion, and China Overseas Development Association of National Development and Reform Commission. The local governments have many investment promotion agencies with overlapping functions and different names, which makes the situation complicated and confusing. This setup is not conducive to promoting Chinese OFDI in the long term. The large number of official OFDI promotion agencies can lead to chaos in cross-management and approval by multiple agencies, which can hamper the efficiency of enterprises' OFDI by delaying investment transaction opportunities. Therefore, after the formulation of the Law on Promoting Outward Direct Investment, the names, functions, and operations of central and local OFDI promotion agencies should be unified, and the central and local investment promotion work should be coordinated. On this basis, a National OFDI Promotion Committee should be established, responsible for formulating the national OFDI strategy, and leading, managing, and coordinating OFDI activities in a centralized manner, to promote the better development of Chinese OFDI.

(3) Improve foreign exchange, financial and taxation, and sectoral support policies and promotion policies concerning information services.

After the promulgation of basic laws to regulate OFDI, the State Council may formulate inferior administrative regulations to enhance the operability of the laws. Functional departments of the State Council may formulate detailed departmental rules within the framework of the basic laws to regulate OFDI activities in the foreign exchange, finance, insurance, government finance, taxation, and industrial sectors.

On the other hand, to safeguard Chinese MNEs' OFDI interests, or better exert the "protection effect" of the country-specific advantage, the state may consider the following suggestions:

(1) Expedite negotiations on international investment protection agreements

By 2020, China had signed bilateral investment protection agreements with 130 countries (Ministry of Commerce & National Bureau of Statistics, 2021) but not with some developed economies such as the US. Moreover, the signed investment

protection agreements have very limited clauses on protecting Chinese MNEs' OFDI interests. Therefore, the Chinese government should sign bilateral investment protection agreements with major developed countries (such as Russia, India, Brazil and etc) and strive for the right of subrogation for Chinese insurance institutions in host countries in such agreements. It should also strengthen and expand cooperation with the Multi-lateral Investment Guarantee Agency, through which it can provide guarantees for Chinese MNEs' OFDI in a wider range of fields and prevent political and policy risks in OFDI.

(2) Enhance consular and diplomatic protection

China has enormous overseas economic interests in regions prone to political and social risks, such as Africa and Latin America. To protect Chinese MNEs' OFDI interests and make up for the insufficiency of consular protection, which is constrained by the domestic laws of the host country, the government should disregard theoretical limitations and recognize the important role of diplomatic protection in safeguarding overseas economic interests. While preventing the negative effects of diplomatic protection, China should creatively use diplomatic protection to safeguard Chinese MNEs' OFDI interests.

(3) Explore new ways to use military force to safeguard Chinese MNEs' OFDI interests

China's Military Strategy white paper released in 2015 raised, for the first time, the concept of 'area crucially related to China's overseas interests' (The State Council Information Office, 2015). It states that safeguarding the security of China's overseas interests is an integral part of China's military strategy. It also notes that China will develop a modern maritime military force structure commensurate with its national security and development interests to protect the security of strategic sea lines of communication and overseas interests. To safeguard OFDI and other overseas economic interests, the government should continue to explore ways to use military force appropriately, such as gradually normalizing naval ocean escort or building a new type of overseas base supported by the navy while being free from suspicion of

other countries, to meet the urgent need of safeguarding China's overseas economic interests.

(4) Build a social mechanism for safeguarding Chinese MNEs' overseas interests

To safeguard China's overseas investment and other interests, the government should consider building a complementary social mechanism that meets the needs of divergent fields and set at a different level from the official protection mechanism, while also serving the expansion and maintenance of the nation's overseas interests. To this end, the government should pay attention to the positive role of the more than 60 million overseas Chinese in more than 160 countries (Zhang, Zhang and Hu, 2020), especially Chinese politicians. Moreover, the Chinese government should attach importance to its ties with non-governmental institutions and organizations, maintain good relations with local heavyweights and influencers, and handle relations with the local public properly. In the face of emergencies, the government should encourage private security enterprises and non-governmental rescue organizations to enter those countries where Chinese overseas investment is concentrated, cooperate with the emergency response mechanism of the embassy, and participate in emergency rescue.

(5) Create a "united front" with friendly countries to better protect the investment interests of Chinese MNEs

Against the backdrop of growing economic nationalism and the potential threat of western sanctions, it is crucial for China to establish strategic partnerships with other major global powers to safeguard the investment interests of Chinese MNEs. In this context, Russia represents an optimal partner. The recent Joint Statement between President Xi and President Putin underscores the imperative of exploring feasible mechanisms to protect the overseas interests of both nations (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2023). In this regard, it should be noted that Russia's highly effective intelligence system, especially expertise in political risk assessment, knowledge of international laws and familiarity with diverse business cultures can be of great benefit to Chinese MNEs seeking to protect their investments; meanwhile Russia's

significant influence over India, CIS, Middle Eastern, African and Latin American countries can play a significant role in creating a stable and favorable business environment not only for Russia MNEs, but also for Chinese MNEs. Furthermore, China and Russia can collaborate to establish a united front with other friendly countries. This entails strengthening "alliances" with nations that share similar interests and values, as well as promoting a common vision for global economic governance. By doing so, China and Russia can foster a more secure and favorable business environment for MNEs from both countries, which would ultimately benefit both nations.

6.3 Limitations and future research

As for limitation of this research, the following scopes ought to be indicated and suggestions on future research is also stated: Firstly, this research is limited by the lack of comparisons between the PRD of Chinese OFDI and that of other countries due to the unavailability of data on their OFDI distribution (to date, I have not found any other databases that provide detailed information on Chinese OFDI similar to the CGIT database provided by the AEI or EMENDATA). However, given more data, future research could be conducted to explore the similarities and differences between the PRD of Chinese OFDI and that of other countries. Comparisons could be made between developed economies, such as those of the US, Japan, and Western Europe, and between emerging economies, such as those of Russia, Brazil, India and South Africa, to better understand the locational choices of Chinese enterprises during international expansion; also, differences in the Political Risk Distribution of Chinese OFDI in recent five years (2018-2022) and that in the previous ten years (2006-2017) could also examined and explained from the policy-shifting perspective to find reasons behind.

Secondly, this research is also limited by the measurement of both political risk and Chinese OFDI. Because CGIT dataset only accounts for the ultimate global ownership of Chinese OFDI and thus reduce the problem of underestimation due to tax havens, an inevitable drawback of this dataset is that it only includes investment

of more than 100 million USD. This threshold excludes hundreds of small investors and, therefore, under-represents investments made by small Chinese firms. Moreover, the CPRI index extracted 13 political risk indicators from ICRG, that, according to Alon, Anderson, Bailey, and Sutherland (2017) often yields negative results regardless of the measurement of Chinese OFDI (whether official or commercial) and can affect modeling results. Recognizing that complex measurement issues concerning Chinese OFDI and political risk could lead to biased and even inaccurate results, it is proposed that a highly nuanced and well-reasoned approach to measuring both Chinese OFDI and political risk should be adopted. This is accomplished by adding to the CPRI more relevant indicators that can better represent the views of Chinese MNEs on political risk, and by using more nuanced firm-level measurements of Chinese OFDI, which can be achieved by matching data from several available sources to make possible new empirical analyses of the internationalization of Chinese MNEs.

Список литературы диссертационного исследования кандидат наук Гаоянь Цююй, 2023 год

Bibliography

In English

Category 1:Literature on International Economy

1. Knight, F. (1921). Risk Uncertainty and Profit. University of Chicago Press.

2. Vernon, R. (1966). International investment and international trade in the product cycle. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80(2), 190-207. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/1880689

3. Root, F. R. (1968). The expropriation experience of American companies: What happened to 38 companies? Business Horizons, 11, 69-74. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0007-6813(68)90088-8

4. Truitt, J. F. (1970). Expropriation of foreign investment: Summary of the post-World War II experience of American and British investors in the less developed countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 1, 21-34. https://doi.org/ 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490714

5. Robock, S. H. (1971). Political risk-identification and assessment. Columbia Journal of World Business, 6, 6-20.

6. Smith, C. (1971). Predicting the political environment of international business. Long Range Planning, 4, 7-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(71)90044-6

7. Green, R. T., & Smith, C. H. (1972). Multinational profitability as a function of political instability. Management International Review, 12, 23-29.

8. Green, R. T., & Korth, C. M. (1974). Political instability and the foreign investor. California Management Review, 17, 23-31. https://doi.org/10.2307/41164541

9. Haendel, D., West, G. T., & Meadow, R. G. (1975). Overseas investment and political risk, no. 21. Foreign Policy Research Institute.

10.Buckley, P., & Casson, M. (1976). The future of the multinational enterprise. Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-02899-3

11.Hymer, S. H. (1976). The international operations of national firms: A study of direct foreign investment. The MIT Press.

12.Kobrin, S. J. (1976). The environmental determinants of foreign direct manufacturing investment: An ex post empirical analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 7, 29-42. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490631

13.Dunning, J. H. (1977). Trade, location of economic activity and the MNE: A search for an eclectic approach. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-1-349-03196-2_38

14.Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitment. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23-32. https://doi.org/10.1057/ palgrave.jibs.8490676

15.Kojima, K. (1978). Direct foreign investment: A Japanese model of multi-national business operations. Croom Helm.

16.Root, F. R., & Ahmed, A. A. (1978). The influence of policy instruments on manufacturing direct foreign investment in developing countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 1, 81-93. https://doi.org/10.1057/ palgrave.jibs.8490670

17.Kobrin, S. J. (1979). Political risk: A review and reconsideration. Journal of International Business Studies, 10, 67-80. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520310094

18.Dunning, J. H. (1980). Towards an eclectic theory of international production: Some empirical tests. Journal of International Business Studies, 11, 9-31. https:// doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490593

19.Kobrin, S. J., Basek, J., Blank, S., & La Palombara, J. (1980). The assessment and evaluation of noneconomic environments by American firms: A preliminary report. Journal of International Business Studies, 11, 32-47. https://doi.org/ 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490594

20.Brewer, T. L. (1981). Political risk assessment for foreign direct investment decisions: Better methods for better results. Columbia Journal of World Business, 16, 5-12.

21.Dunning, J. H. (1981). International production and the multinational enterprise. Allen & Unwin.

22.Shapiro, A. C. (1981). Managing political risk: A policy approach. Columbia Journal of World Business, 16, 63-70.

23.Kobrin, S. J. (1982). Managing political risk assessment: Strategic response to environmental change. University of California Press.

24.Poynter, T. A. (1982). Government intervention in less developed countries: The experience of multinational companies. Journal of International Business Studies, 13, 9-25. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490535

25.Fitzpatrick, M. (1983). The definition and assessment of political risk in international business: A review of the literature. Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 249-254. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.37315470

26.Wells, L. T. (1983). Third world multinationals. The MIT Press. 1983

27.Simon, J. D. (1984). A theoretical perspective on political risk. Journal of

International Business Studies, 15, 123-143. https://doi.org/10.1057/ palgrave.jibs.8490499

28.Teece, D. J. (1986). Transaction cost economics and multinational enterprise: An assessment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 7(1), 21-45. https:// doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(86)90020-X

29.Ghoshal, S. (1987). Global strategy: An organizing frame-work. Strategic Management Journal, 8, 425-440. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250080503

30.Hennart, J. F. (1988). A transaction costs theory of equity joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 361-374. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250090406

31.Ting, W. (1988). Multinational Risk Assessment and Management. Strategies for Investment and Marketing Decisions. Quorum Books. https://doi.org/10.1002/ tie.5060300211

32.Yu, C. M. J., & Ito, K. (1988). Oligopolistic reaction and foreign direct investment: The case of the US tire and textiles industries. Journal of International Business Studies, 19, 449-460. https://doi.org/10.1057/ palgrave.jibs.8490391

33.Boyacigiller, N. (1990). The role of expatriates in the management of interdependence, complexity and risk in multi- national corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 21, 357-381.

34.Lecraw, D. J. (1993). Outward direct investment by Indonesian firms: Motivation and effects. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(3), 589-600. https:// doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490247

35.Makhija, M. V. (1993). Government intervention in the Venezuelan petroleum industry: An empirical investigation of political risk. Journal of International Business Studies, 24, 531-555. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490244

36.Levinthal, D., & Myatt, J. (1994). Co-evolution of capabilities and industry: The evolution of mutual fund processing. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 45-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250150905

37.Denekamp, J. G. (1995). Intangible assets, internalization and foreign direct investment in manufacturing. Journal of International Business Studies, 26, 493504. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490184

38.Li, J. (1995). Foreign entry and survival: Effects of strategic choices on performance in international markets. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 333351. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250160502

39.Grosse, R., & Trevino, L. J. (1996). Foreign direct investment in the United States: An analysis by country of origin. Journal of International Business Studies, 27, 139-155. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490129

40.Inkpen, A., & Beamish, P. (1997). Knowledge, bargaining power, and the instability of international joint ventures. Academy of Management Review, 22, 177-202. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9707180263

41.Alon, I., & Matthew, M. (1998). A normative model of macro political risk assessment. Multinational Business Review, 6(2), 10-19.

42.Chen, H., & Chen, T. J. (1998). Network linkages and location choice in foreign direct investment. Journal of International Business Studies, 29, 445-467. https:// doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490002

43.Wells, L. T. Jr (1998). God and fair competition: Does the foreign direct investor face still other risks in emerging markets? In T. H. Moran, (Ed.), Managing international political risk (pp. 15- 43). Blackwell Publishers.

44.Christmann, P., Day, D., & Yip, G. (1999). The relative influence of country conditions, industry structure, and business strategy on multinational corporation subsidiary performance. Journal of International Management, 5, 241-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1075-4253(99)00015-0

45.Clarke, C. J., & Varma, S. (1999). Strategic risk management: The new competitive edge. Long Range Planning, 32, 414-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0024-6301(99)00052-7

46.Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24, 191-205. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.1893928

47.Globerman, S., & Shapiro, D. M. (1999). The impact of government policies on foreign direct investment: The Canadian experience. Journal of International Business Studies, 30, 513-532. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490081

48.Hillman, A. J., & Hitt, M. A. (1999). Corporate political strategy formulation: A model of approach, participation, and strategy decisions. Academy of Management Review, 24, 825-842. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2553256

49.Ruefli, T. W., Collins, J. M., & Lacugna, J.R. (1999). Risk measures in strategic management research: Auld lang syne? Strategic Management Journal, 20, 167194. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:2<167::AID-SMJ9>3.0.C0;2-Q

50.Schuler, D. A., & Brown, D. S. (1999). Democracy, regional market integration, and foreign direct investment lessons from Costa Rica. Business & Society, 38, 450-473. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039903800405

51.Chin, M. L., Bond, J. R., & Geva, N. (2000). A foot in the door: An experimental study of PAC and constituency effects on access. Journal of Politics, 62, 534-549. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00024

52.Delios, A., & Henisz, W. (2000). Japanese firms' investment strategies in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 305-323. https:// doi.org/10.5465/1556397

53.Isobe, T., Makino, S., & Montgomery, D. B. (2000). Resource commitment, entry timing, and market performance of foreign direct investments in emerging economies: The case of Japanese international joint ventures in China. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 468-484. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556405

54.Barney, J. B., & Arikan, A. M. (2001). The resource-based view: Origins and implications. In M. A. Hitt, R. E. Freeman, & J. S. Harrison, (Eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Strategic Management (pp. 124-188). Wiley-Blackwell.

55.Getz, K. A. (2001). Public affairs and political strategy: Theoretical foundations. Journal of Public Affairs, 1, 305-329. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.77

56.Hammersley, M. (2001). On 'systematic' reviews of research literatures: A'narrative' response to Evans & Benefield. British Educational Research Journal, 27, 543-554. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920120095726

57.Henisz, W. J., & Delios, A. (2001). Uncertainty, imitation, and plant location: Japanese multinational corporations, 1990-1996. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 443-475. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094871

58.Holburn, G. L. (2001). Political risk, political capabilities and international investment strategy: Evidence from the power generation industry [Unpublished Doctoral Seminar]. Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario.

59.Luo, Y. (2001). Toward a cooperative view of MNC-host government relations: Building blocks and performance implications. Journal of International Business Studies, 32, 401-419. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490974

60.Ramamurti, R. (2001). The obsolescing 'bargaining model'? MNC-host developing country relations revisited. Journal of International Business Studies, 32, 23-39. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490936

61.Stephan, M., & Pfaffmann, E. (2001). Detecting the pitfalls of data on foreign direct investment: Scope and limits of FDI data. Management International Review, 41(2), 189-218.

62.Booysen, F. (2002). An overview and evaluation of composite indices of development. Social indicators research, 59, 115-151. https://doi.org/10.1023/ A:1016275505152

63.Doh, J. P., & Teegen, H. (2002). Nongovernmental organizations as institutional actors in international business: Theory and implications. International Business Review, 11, 665-684. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-5931(02)00044-6

64.Ellstrand, A. E., Tihanyi, L., & Johnson, J. L. (2002). Board structure and international political risk. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 769-777. https:// doi.org/10.5465/3069310

65.Habib, M., & Zurawicki, L. (2002). Corruption and foreign direct investment. Journal of International Business Studies, 33, 291-307. https://doi.org/10.1057/ palgrave.jibs.8491017

66.Herrmann, P., & Datta, D. K. (2002). CEO successor characteristics and the choice of foreign market entry mode: An empirical study. Journal of International Business Studies, 33, 551-569. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8491031

67.Mudambi, R., & Mudambi, S. M. (2002). Diversification and market entry choices in the context of foreign direct investment. International Business Review, 11, 3555. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-5931(01)00046-4

68.Delios, A., & Henisz, W. J. (2003a). Political hazards, experience, and sequential entry strategies: The international expansion of Japanese firms, 1980-1998. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1153-1164. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.355

69.Delios, A., & Henisz, W. J. (2003b). Policy uncertainty and the sequence of entry by Japanese firms, 1980-1998. Journal of International Business Studies, 34, 227-241. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400031

70.Borrmann, C. (2003) Methodological problems of FDI statistics in accession countries and EU countries. Hamburg Institute of International Economics.

71.Deng, P. (2003). Foreign direct investment by transnationals from emerging countries: The case of China. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(2), 113-124. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190301000211

72.Doukas, J. A., & Lang, L. H. (2003). Foreign direct investment, diversification and firm performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 34, 153-172. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400014

73.Freudenberg, M. (2003). Composite indicators of country performance. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers (No. 2003/16), OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/405566708255.

74.Globerman, S., & Shapiro, D. M. (2003). Governance infrastructure and US foreign direct investment. Journal of International Business Studies, 34, 19-39. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400001

75.Guille n, M. F. (2003). Experience, imitation, and the sequence of foreign entry: Wholly owned and joint-venture manufacturing by South Korean firms and business groups in China, 1987-1995. Journal of International Business Studies, 34, 185-198. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400016

76.Henisz, W. J., & Zelner, B. A. (2003). The strategic organization of political risk and opportunities. Strategic Organization, 1, 451-460. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/14761270030014005

77.Iankova, E., & Katz, J. (2003). Strategies for political risk mediation by international firms in transition economies: The case of Bulgaria. Journal of World Business, 38, 182-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-9516(03)00018-X

78.Li, Q., & Resnick, A. (2003). Reversal of fortunes: Democratic institutions and foreign direct investment inflows to developing countries. International Organization, 57, 175-211. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818303571077

79.Sridharan, K. (2003). Federalism and foreign relations: The nascent role of the Indian states. Asian Studies Review, 27, 463-489. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10357820308713389

80.Chen, T. J., Chen, H., & Ku, Y. H. (2004). Foreign direct investment and local linkages. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 320-333. https://doi.org/ 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400085

81.Deng, P. (2004). Outward investment by Chinese MNCs: Motivations and Implications. Business Horizons, 47(3), 8-16.

82.Ebert, U., & Welsch, H. (2004). Meaningful environmental indices: A social choice approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 47, 270-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjeem.2003.09.001

83.Grupp, H. & Mogee, M. E. (2004). Indicators for national science and technology policy: How robust are composite indicators? Research Policy, 33, 1373-1384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.09.007

84.Henisz, W. J., & Delios, A. (2004). Information or influence? The benefits of experience for managing political uncertainty. Strategic Organization, 2, 389-421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127004047619

85.Lundan, S. M. (Ed.). (2004). Multinationals, Environment and Global Competition. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1064-4857(2003)9

86.Sharpe, A. (2004). Literature review of frameworks for macro-indicators. Centre for the Study of Living Standards Ottawa.

87.Autio, E. (2005). Creative tension: The significance of Ben Oviatt's and Patricia McDougall's article 'Toward a theory of international new ventures'. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(1), 9-19. https://doi.org/10.1057/ palgrave.jibs.8400117

88.Bremmer, I. (2005). Managing risk in an unstable world. Harvard Business Review, 83, 51-60.

89.Busse, M., & Hefeker, C. (2005). Political risk, institutions and foreign direct investment. Hamburg Institute of International Economics. https://doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.704283

90.Child[A3] , J., & Rodriguez, S. B. (2005). The internationalization of Chinese Firms: A case for theoretical extension? Management and Organization Review, 7(3), 381-410. https://doi.org/10.! 111/j.1740-8784.2005.0020a.x

91.Chorell, H., Nilsson, E., & Amid, J. (2005). Chinese FDI in the oil sector: Can they be explained by the prevalent theory of FDI? Uppsala University.

92.Chung, C. C., & Beamish, P. W. (2005). The impact of institutional reforms on characteristics and survival of foreign subsidiaries in emerging economies. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 35-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-6486.2005.00488.x

93.Click, R. W. (2005). Financial and political risk in US direct foreign investment. Journal of International Business Studies, 36, 559-575. https://doi.org/10.1057/ palgrave.jibs.8400157

94.Lawton, T., & McGuire, S. (2005). Adjusting to liberalization: Tracing the impact of the WTO on the European textiles and chemicals industries. Business and Politics, 7, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.2202/1469-3569.1097

95.Moran, T., & West, G. T. (2005). International political risk management: Looking to the future. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-6154-2

96.Oetzel, J. (2005). Smaller may be beautiful but is it more risky? Assessing and managing political and economic risk in Costa Rica. International Business Review, 14, 765-790. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.ibusrev.2005.09.002

97.Rodriguez, P., Uhlenbruck, K., & Eden, L. (2005). Government corruption and the entry strategies of multinationals. Academy of Management Review, 30, 383-396. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.16387894

98.Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., & Tarantola, S. (2005). Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques as tools for the quality assessment of composite indicators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 168, 307323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2005.00350.x

99.Alon, I., Matthew, M., Rajesh, G., & Teresa, S. (2006). Managing micro-political risk: A cross sectional study. Thunderbird International Business Review, 48(5), 623-642. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.20113

100.Chan, C. M., Makino, S., & Isobe, T. (2006). Interdependent behavior in foreign direct investment: The multi-level effects of prior entry and prior exit on foreign

market entry. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 642-665. https:// doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400216

101.Dahan, N., Doh, J., & Guay, T. (2006). The role of multinational corporations in transnational institution building: A policy network perspective. Human Relations, 59(11), 1571-1600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726706072854

102.Frynas, J. G., Mellahi, K., & Pigman, G. A. (2006). First mover advantages in international business and firm-specific political resources. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 321-345. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.519

103.Kwok, C. C., & Tadesse, S. (2006). The MNC as an agent of change for host-country institutions: FDI and corruption. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 767-785. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400228

104.Mathews, J. A. (2006). Dragon multinationals: New players in 21st century globalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(1), 5-27. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10490-006-6113-0

105.Rothaermel, F.T., Kotha, S., & Steensma, H. K. (2006). International market entry by US internet firms: an empirical analysis of country risk, national culture, and market size. Journal of Management, 32, 56-82. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0149206305277793

106.Desbordes, R. (2007). The sensitivity of US multinational enterprises to political and macroeconomic uncertainty: A sectoral analysis. International Business Review, 16, 732-750. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.ibusrev.2007.08.006

107.Bohringer, C., & Jochem, P. E. (2007). Measuring the immeasurable: A survey of sustainability indices. Ecological economics, 63, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecolecon.2007.03.008

108.Buckley, P. J., Clegg, L. J., Cross A R, Liu, X., Voss, H., & Zheng, P. (2007). The determinants of Chinese outward foreign direct investment. Journal of International Business studies, 38(4), 499-518. https://doi.org/10.1057/ palgrave.jibs.8400277

109.Cheng, L. K., & Ma, Z. (2007). China's outward FDI: Past and future [unpublished raw data]. Renmin University of China working paper series.

110.Cheng, S., & Stough, R. R. (2007). The pattern and magnitude of China's outward FDI in Asia. New Dimensions of Economic Globalization, 115-139. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812793119_0005

111.Drillfield, N., & Love, J. H. (2007). Linking FDI motivation and host economy productivity effects: conceptual and empirical analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(3), 460-473. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400268

112.Gaur, A. S., & Lu, J. W. (2007). Ownership strategies and survival of foreign subsidiaries: Impacts of institutional distance and experience. Journal of Management, 33, 84-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306295203

113.Luo, Y., & Tung, R. L. (2007). International expansion of emerging market enterprises: A springboard perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4), 481-498. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400275

114.Quer, D., Claver, E., & Rienda, L. (2007). The impact of country risk and cultural distance on entry mode choice: An integrated approach. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 14, 74-87. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/13527600710718859

115.Siegel, J. (2007). Contingent political capital and international alliances: Evidence from South Korea. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 621-666. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52A621

116.Singh, R. K., Murty, H., Gupta, S., & Dikshit, A. (2007). Development of composite sustainability performance index for steel industry. Ecological Indicators, 7, 565-588. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.ecolind.2006.06.004

117.Witt, M. A., & Lewin, A. Y. (2007). Outward foreign direct investment as escape response to home country institutional constraints. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 579-594. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400285

118.Alon, I., Herbert, Th. T., & Munoz, M. J. (2008). Performance strategies for the globalizing Chinese enterprises: Resource. In I. Alon, & J. R. McIntyre, (Eds.), Globalization of Chinese enterprises (pp. 44-60). Palgrave Macmillan. https:// doi.org/10.4000/chinaperspectives.4760

119.Buckley, P. J., Clegg, L. J., Cross, A. R., Liu, X., Voss, H., & Zheng, P. (2008). Explaining China's outward FDI: An institutional perspective. In K. P. Sauvant, (Ed.), The rise of transnational corporations from emerging markets (pp. 106-157). Edward Elgar.

120.Deng, P. (2008). Resources, capability, and outbound FDI from Chinese companies. In I. Alon, & J. R. McIntyre, (Eds.), Globalization of Chinese Enterprises (pp. 17-30). Palgrave Macmillan.

121.Detomasi, D. A. (2008). The political roots of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 807-819. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551-007-9594-y

122.Bandura, R. (2008). A survey of composite indices measuring country performance: 2008 update. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

123.Brouthers, K. D., Brouthers, L. E., & Werner, S. (2008). Real options, international entry mode choice and performance. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 936-960. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00753.x

124.Cantwell, J., & Barnard, H. (2008). Do firms from emerging markets have to invest abroad? Outward FDI and the competitiveness of firms. In K. P. Sauvant, (Ed.), The rise of transnational corporations from emerging markets (pp. 55-85). Edward Elgar.

125.Chan, C. M., Isobe, T., & Makino, S. (2008). Which country matters? Institutional development and foreign affiliate performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1179-1205. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.705

126.Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Genc, M. (2008). Transforming disadvantages into advantages: Developing-country MNEs in the least developed countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(6), 957-979. https://doi.org/10.1057/ palgrave.jibs.8400390

127.Dunning, J. H., & Lundan, S. M. (2008). Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Edward Elgar Publishing.

128.Garc ia-Canal, E., & Guille n, M. F. (2008). Risk and the strategy of foreign location choice in regulated industries. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 10971115. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.692

129.Holburn, G. L., & Bergh, R. G. V. (2008). Making friends in hostile environments: Political strategy in regulated industries. Academy of Management Review, 33, 521-540. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193554

130.Jackson, G., & Deeg, R. (2008). Comparing capitalisms: Understanding institutional diversity and its implications for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 540-561. https://doi.org/10.1057/ palgrave.jibs.8400375

131.Jensen, N. M. (2008). Nation, states and the multinational corporation: A political economy of foreign direct investment. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/9781400837373

132.Li, J. J., Poppo, L., & Zhou, K. Z. (2008). Do managerial ties in China always produce value? Competition, uncertainty, and domestic vs. foreign firms. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 383-400. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.665

133.Malesky, E. J. (2008). Straight ahead on red: How foreign direct investment empowers subnational leaders. Journal of Politics, 70, 97-119. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S0022381607080085

134.Morck, R., Yeung, B., & Zhao, M. (2008). Perspectives on China's outward foreign direct investment. Journal of International Business studies, 39(3), 337350. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400366

135.OECD 2008. Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. OECD publishing.

136.Rousseau, D. M., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. (2008). Evidence in management and organizational science: assembling the field's full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 475-515. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520802211651

137.Alon, I., & Herbert, T. (2009). A stranger in a strange land: Micro political risk and the multinational firm. Business Horizons, 52(2), 127-137. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.bushor.2008.09.004

138.Cheung, Y. and Qian, X. (2009). The empirics of China's outward direct investment. Pacific Economic Review, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1413048

139.Cheung, Y. W., & Qian, X. (2009). Empirics of China's outward direct investment. Pacific Economic Review, 14(3), 312-341. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1468-0106.2009.00451.x

140.Feinberg, S. E., & Gupta, A. K. (2009). MNC subsidiaries and country risk: Internalization as a safeguard against weak external institutions. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 381-399. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.37315470

141.Getz, K. A., & Oetzel, J. (2009). MNE strategic intervention in violent conflict: Variations based on conflict characteristics. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 375386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0412-6

142.Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35, 1404-1427. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0149206309343469

143.Lawton, T., Lindeque, J., & McGuire, S. (2009). Multilateralism and the multinational enterprise: The WTO's influence on strategy process. Business and Politics, 11, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555341111111192

144.Singh, R. K., Murty, H. R., Gupta, S. K., & Dikshit, A. K. (2009). An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological indicators, 9, 189-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.05.011

145.Slangen, A. H., & van Tulder, R. J. (2009). Cultural distance, political risk, or governance quality? Towards a more accurate conceptualization and measurement of external uncertainty in foreign entry mode research. International Business Review, 18, 276-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2009.02.014

146.Beugelsdijk, S., Hennart, J. F., Slangen, A., & Smeets, R. (2010). Why and how FDI stocks are a biased measure of MNE affiliate activity? Journal of

International Business Studies, 41, 1444-1459. https://doi.org/10.1057/ jibs.2010.29

147.Bremmer, I., & Keat, P. (2010). The fat tail: The Power of political knowledge in an uncertain world. Oxford University Press.

148.Czinkota, M. R., Knight, G., Liesch, P. W., & Steen, J. (2010). Terrorism and international business: A research agenda. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 826-843. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.12

149.Henisz, W. J., Mansfield, E., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2010). Conflict, security, and political risk: International business in challenging times. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 759-764. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.11

150.Holburn, G. L., & Zelner, B. A. (2010). Political capabilities, policy risk, and international investment strategy: Evidence from the global electric power generation industry. Strategic Management Journal, 31(12), 1290-1315. https:// doi.org/10.1002/smj.860

151.Jime nez, A. (2010). Does political risk affect the scope of the expansion abroad? Evidence from Spanish MNEs. International Business Review, 19, 619-633. https://doi.org/10.1016/jibusrev.2010.03.004

152.Krifa-Schneider, H., & Matei, I. (2010). Business climate, political risk and FDI in developing countries: Evidence from panel data. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 2, 54-65. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijef.v2n5p54

153.Lall, S., & Chen, E. (2010). The New Multinationals: New Spanish firms in a global context. Cambridge University Press

154.Li, Q., & Vashchilko, T. (2010). Dyadic military conflict, security alliances, and bilateral FDI flows. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 765-782. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.91

155.McKellar, R. (2010). A short guide to political risk. Alder- shot.

156.Nebus, J., & Rufin, C. (2010). Extending the bargaining power model: Explaining bargaining outcomes among nations, MNEs, and NGOs. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 996-1015. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.43

157.Demirbag, M., Mellahi, K., & Riddle, L. (2011). Multinationals in the Middle East: Institutional environment and strategies. Journal of World Business, 46, 406-410. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjwb.2010.10.001

158.Bandura, R. (2011). Composite indicators and rankings: Inventory 2011. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

159.Duanmu, J. (2011). The effect of corruption distance and market orientation on the ownership choice of MNEs: Evidence from China. Journal of International Management, 17(2), 162-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2011.01.003

160.Huang, Y., & Wang, B. (2011). Chinese outward direct investment: Is there a China model? China & World Economy, 19(4), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1749-124X.2011.01254.x

161.Hurst, L. (2011). Comparative analysis of the determinants of China's state-owned outward direct investment in OECD and non-OECD countries. China & World Economy, 19(4), 74-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-124X.2011.01251.x

162.Lawton, T., & Rajwani, T. (2011). Designing lobbying capabilities: Managerial choices in unpredictable environments. European Business Review, 23, 167-189.

163.Lu, J., Liu, X., & Wang, H. (2011). Motives for outward FDI of Chinese private firms: Firm resources, industry dynamics and government polices. Management & Organization Review, 7(2), 223-248. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1740-8784.2010.00184.x

164.Mellahi, K., Demirbag, M., & Riddle, L. (2011). Multinationals in the Middle East: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of World Business, 46, 406-410. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjwb.2010.10.001

165.Quer, D., Claver, E., & Rienda, L. (2011). Political risk, cultural distance, and outward foreign direct investment: Empirical evidence from large Chinese firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(4), 1089-1104. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10490-011-9247-7

166.Saisana, M., & Saltelli, A. (2011). Rankings and ratings: Instructions for use. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 3, 247-268. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1876404511200058

167.Becker, S. O., Egger, P. H., & Merlo, V. (2012). How low business tax rate attract MNE activity: Municipality-level evidence from Germany. Journal of Public Economics, 96(9-10), 698-711. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjpubeco.2012.05.006

168.Cui , L., & Jiang, F. (2012). State ownership effect on firms' FDI ownership decisions under institutional pressure: A study of Chinese outward-investing firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 43, 264-284. https://doi.org/10.1057/ jibs.2012.1

169.Dieleman, M., & Boddewyn, J. J. (2012). Using organization structure to buffer political ties in emerging markets: A case study. Organization Studies, 33, 71-95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840611430595

170.Doh, J. P., Lawton, T. C., & Rajwani, T. (2012). Advancing nonmarket strategy research: Institutional perspectives in a changing world. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26, 22-39. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0041

171.Duanmu, J. (2012). Firm heterogeneity and location choice of Chinese Multinational Enterprises (MNEs). Journal of World Business, 47(1), 64-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjwb.2010.10.021

172.Gehlbach, S., & Keefer, P. (2012). Private investment and the institutionalization of collective action in autocracies: Ruling parties and legislatures. Journal of Politics, 74, 621-635. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381611001952

173.Jime nez, A., & Delgado-Garc ia, J. B. (2012). Proactive management of political risk and corporate performance: The case of Spanish multinational enterprises. International Business Review, 21, 1029-1040. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ibusrev.2011.11.008

174.Kolstad, I., & Wiig, A. (2012). What determines Chinese outward FDI? Journal of World Business, 47, 26-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjwb.2010.10.017

175.Lee, S. H., & Hong, S. J. (2012). Corruption and subsidiary profitability: US MNC subsidiaries in the Asia Pacific region. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29, 949-964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-010-9214-8

176.Moran, T. H. (2012). Chinese foreign direct investment in Canada: Threat or opportunity? Canadian Council of Chief Executives.

177.Peng, M. W. (2012). The global strategy of emerging multinationals from China. Global Strategy Journal, 2(2), 97-107. https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1030

178.Quer, D., Claver, E., & Rienda, L. (2012). Political risk, cultural distance, and outward foreign direct investment: empirical evidence from large Chinese firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29, 1089-1104. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10490-011-9247-7

179.Ramasamy, B., Yeung, M., & Laforet, S. (2012). China's outward foreign direct investment: Location choice and firm ownership. Journal of World Business, 47(1), 17-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjwb.2010.10.016

180.Ramasamy, B., Yeung, M., & Laforet, S. (2012). China's outward foreign direct investment: Location choice and firm ownership. Journal of World Business, 47(1), 17-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjwb.2010.10.016

181.Rosen, D. H., & Hanemann, T. (2012). China invests in Europe: Patterns, impacts and policy implications. Rhodium Group, China International Capital Corporation, Brunswick Group. https://rhg.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ RHG_ChinaInvestsInEurope_June2012.pdf

182.Rowley, H. V., Peters, G. M., Lundie, S., & Moore, S. J. (2012). Aggregating sustainability indicators: Beyond the weighted sum. Journal of Environmental Management, 111, 24-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjenvman.2012.05.004

183.Saisana, M., & Philippas, D. (2012). Sustainable Society Index (SSI): Taking societies' pulse along social, environmental and economic issues. The Joint Research Centre audit on the SSI. https://doi.org/10.2788/6330

184.Salomon, R., & Wu, Z. (2012). Institutional distance and local isomorphism strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 43, 343-367. https://doi.org/ 10.1057/jibs.2012.3

185.Sawant, R. J. (2012). Asset specificity and corporate political activity in regulated industries. Academy of Management Review, 37, 194-210. https:// doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0022

186.Tung, C., Wang, G., & Yeh, J. (2012). Renminbi internationalization: Progress, prospect and comparison. China & World Economy, 20(5), 63-82. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1749-124X.2012.01302.x

187.Zheng, C. (2012). Isomorphic influences and aspiration reference group choice in entry mode decisions. Journal of International Business Research, 11, 129-141.

188.Boubakri, N., Mansi, S. A., & Saffar, W. (2013). Political institutions, connectedness, and corporate risk-taking. Journal of International Business Studies, 44, 195-215. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2013.2

189.Hadani, M., & Schuler, D. A. (2013). In search of El Dorado: The elusive financial returns on corporate political investments. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 165-181. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2006

190.Holmes, R. M., Miller, T., Hitt, M. A., & Salmador, M. P. (2013). The interrelationships among informal institutions, formal institutions, and inward foreign direct investment. Journal of Management, 39, 531- 566. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0149206310393503

191.Lawton, T., Rajwani, T., & Doh, J. (2013). The antecedents of political capabilities: A study of ownership, cross-border activity and organization at legacy airlines in a deregulatory context. International Business Review, 22(1), 228-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/jibusrev.2012.04.001

192.Mazziotta, M., & Pareto, A. (2013). Methods for constructing composite indices: One for all or all for one. Rivista Italiana di Economia Demografia e Statistica, 67, 67-80.

193.Mudambi, R., Navarra, P., & Delios, A. (2013). Government regulation, corruption, and FDI. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30, 487-511. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10490-012-9311-y

194.Paruolo, P., Saisana, M., & Saltelli, A. (2013). Ratings and rankings: Voodoo or science? Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 176, 609-634. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2012.01059.x

195.Puck, J. F., Rogers, H., & Mohr, A. T. (2013). Flying under the radar: Foreign firm visibility and the efficacy of political strategies in emerging economies.

International Business Review, 22, 1021-1033. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ibusrev.2013.02.005

196.Amighini, A., Cozza, C., Rabellotti, R., & Sanfilippo, M. (2014). Investigating Chinese outward foreign direct investments: How can firm-level data help? China & World Economy, 22(6), 44-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/cwe.12091IA8J

197.Burgherr, P., & Hirschberg, S. (2014). Comparative risk assessment of severe accidents in the energy sector. Energy Policy, 74, S45-S56. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.035

198.Choudhury, P., & Khanna, T. (2014). Toward resource independence: Why state-owned entities become multinationals: An empirical study of India's public R&D laboratories. Journal of International Business Studies, 45, 943- 960. https:// doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2014.20

199.De Fouloy, C. (2014). China: Government relations practice. Association of Accredited Public Policy Advocates to the European Union. http://www.aalep.eu/ china-government-relations-practice

200.Duanmu, J. L. (2014). State-owned MNCs and host country expropriation risk: the role of home state soft power and economic gunboat diplomacy. Journal of International Business Studies, 45, 1044-1060. https://doi.org/10.1057/ jibs.2014.16

201.Hiatt, S. R., & Sine, W. D. (2014). Clear and present danger: Planning and new venture survival amid political and civil violence. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 773-785. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2113

202.Jime nez, A., Luis-Rico, I., & Benito-Osorio, D. (2014). The influence of political risk on the scope of inter-nationalization of regulated companies: Insights from a Spanish sample. Journal of World Business, 49, 301-311. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jwb.2013.06.001

203.Jones, O., & Gatrell, C. (2014). Editorial: The future of writing and reviewing for IJMR. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16, 249-264. https:// doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12038

204.Lawton, T., Doh, J., & Rajwani, T. (2014). Aligning for advantage. Oxford University Press.

205.Liedong, T. A., Ghobadian, A., Rajwani, T., & O'Regan, N. (2014). Toward a view of complementarity trust and policy influence effects of corporate social responsibility and corporate political activity. Group & Organization Management, 40, 405-427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601114560064

206.Lu, J., Liu, X., Wright, M., & Filatotchev, I. (2014). International experience and FDI location choices of Chinese firms: The moderating effects of home country government support and host country institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 45, 428- 449. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2013.68

207.Soule, S. A., Swaminathan, A., & Tihanyi, L. (2014). The diffusion of foreign divestment from Burma. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 1032-1052. https:// doi.org/10.1002/smj.2147

208.De Villa, M. A., Rajwani, T., & Lawton, T. (2015). Market entry modes in a multipolar world: Untangling the moderating effect of the political environment. International Business Review, 24, 419-429. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ibusrev.2014.10.001

209.Frynas, J. G., & Stephens, S. (2015). Political corporate social responsibility: Reviewing theories and setting new agendas. International Journal of Management Reviews, 77, 483-509. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12049

210.Hadani, M., & Coombes, S. (2015). Complementary relationships between corporate philanthropy and corporate political activity: An exploratory study of political marketplace contingencies. Business & Society, 54, 859- 991. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0007650312463691

211.Kingsley, A. F., & Vanden Bergh, R. G. (2015). How regulatory uncertainty drives integrated market and nonmarket strategy. In T. C. Lawton, & T. Rajwani, (Eds), The Routledge companion to nonmarket strategy (pp. 47-65). Routledge.

212.Lien, Y. C., & Filatotchev, I. (2015). Ownership characteristics as determinants of FDI location decisions in emerging economies. Journal of World Business, 50, 637-650. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjwb.2014.09.002

213.Maitland, E., & Sammartino, A. (2015). Decision making and uncertainty: The role of heuristics and experience in assessing a politically hazardous environment. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 1554-1578. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2297

214.Marquis, C., & Raynard, M. (2015). Institutional strategies in emerging markets. Academy of Management Annals, 9, 291-335. https://doi.org/ 10.5465/19416520.2015.1014661

215.Oetzel, J., & Oh, C. H. (2015). Managing nonmarket risk. In T. C. Lawton, & T. Rajwani, T. (eds), The Routledge companion to nonmarket strategy (pp. 263-278). Routledge.

216.Rajwani, T., Lawton, T., & Phillips, N. (2015). The 'voice of industry': Why management researchers should pay more attention to trade associations. Strategic Organization, 13, 224-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127015590963

217.Stevens, C. E., Xie, E., & Peng, M. W. (2015). Toward a legitimacy-based view of political risk: The case of Google and Yahoo in China. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 945-963. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2369

218.Blomkvist, K. and Drogendijk, R. (2016). Chinese outward foreign direct investments in Europe. European Journal of International Management, 10(3), 343. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2016.076242

219.Cherchye, L., & Verriest, A. (2016). The impact of home- country institutions and competition on firm profitability. International Business Review, 25, 831-846. https://doi.org/10.1016/jibusrev.2015.10.005

220.Financial Times. (2016). Definition of foreign direct investment. http[A9] :// lexicon.ft.com/Term? term=foreign-direct-investment

221.Henisz, W. J. (2016). Political constraints index database 2013. https:// mgmt.wharton.upenn.edu/ profile/henisz/

222.Kordonsky, S. (2016). Socio-economic foundations of the Russian post-Soviet regime. Columbia University Press.

223.Liu, X., Gao, L., Lu, J., & Lioliou, E. (2016). Environmental risks, localization and the overseas subsidiary performance of MNEs from an emerging economy.

Journal of World Business, 51, 356-368. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jwb.2015.05.002

224.Mellahi, K., Frynas, J. G., Sun, P., & Siegel, D. (2016). A review of the nonmarket strategy literature: Toward a multi-theoretical integration. Journal of Management, 42, 143-173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315617241

225.Diaz-Balteiro, L.,González-Pachón, J., & Romero, C. (2017). Measuring systems sustainability with multi-criteria methods: A critical review. European Journal of Operational Research, 258, 607-616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.08.075

226.Alon, I., Anderson, J., Bailey, N., & Sutherland, D. (2017). Political risk and Chinese OFDI: Theoretical and methodological implications. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 17640. https://doi.org/10.5465/ AMBPP.2017.17640abstract

227.Carrino, L. (2017). The role of normalisation in building composite indicators. Rationale and consequences of different strategies, applied to social inclusion. In F. Maggino, (ed.), Complexity in society: From indicators construction to their synthesis. Social Indicators Research Series. Springer.

228.Cegan, J. C., Filion, A. M., Keisler, J. M., & Linkov, I. (2017). Trends and applications of multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: Literature review. Environment Systems and Decisions, 37, 123-133. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10669-017-9642-9

229.John, A., & Lawton, T. (2017). International political risk management: Perspectives, approaches and emerging agendas. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(4), 847-879. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12166

230.Mazziotta, M., & Pareto, A. (2017). Syndissertationof indicators: The composite indicators approach. In F. Maggino, (Ed.), Complexity in society: From indicators construction to their synthesis. Springer. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-60595-1_7

231.Quer, D., Claver, E., & Rienda, L. (2018). The influence of political risk, inertia and imitative behavior on the location choice of Chinese multinational enterprises.

International Journal of Emerging Markets, 13(3), 518-535. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/IJoEM-11-2016-0298

232.American Enterprise Institute. (2021). China global investment tracker. American Enterprise Institute and The Heritage Foundation. https://www.aei.org/ china-global-investment-tracker/

233.GaoYan, Q. (2021), "Political risk distribution of Chinese outward foreign direct investment", International Journal of Emerging Markets, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 1202-1227. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJ0EM-06-2018-0344