KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: Kongre Özel Sayısı Özel Sayı

THE ROLE OF SOCIAL NETWORKS IN FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENTS: THE CASE OF TURKISH BUSINESS GROUPS

DOĞRUDAN YABANCI YATIRIMLARDA SOSYAL AĞLARIN ROLÜ: TÜRK İŞLETME GRUPLARI

Tülay İlhan-nas(KARADENİZ TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-6264-7948
Şengül Duran(KAFKAS ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-2872-2350
Sayfa
280–304
Yayın Tarihi
2022-06-16
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Another significant finding obtained within the scope of the study shows that there is no effect of betweenness at the enterprise group level on FDI activities.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This study aims to examine the effect of network structures of Turkish business groups on foreign direct investment decisions.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The scope of the study consists of 13 business groups determined according to the deliberate sampling method and 83 affiliates operating as affiliated companies of these business groups.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Another significant finding obtained within the scope of the study shows that there is no effect of betweenness at the enterprise group level on FDI activities.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:2019 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Social networks · foreign direct investments · Turkish business groups

Özet

This study aims to examine the effect of network structures of Turkish business groups on foreign direct investment decisions. In line with this study, social network structures (in the dimensions of centrality and betweenness) that are handled at the business group level, are evaluated in the context of overlapping boards of directors. The scope of the study consists of 13 business groups determined according to the deliberate sampling method and 83 affiliates operating as affiliated companies of these business groups. In the study, the data about 96 enterprises (13 holdings and 83 affiliates) is obtained between 1997-2019, and their network structures (degrees of centrality and betweenness) are revealed. Afterward, the hypotheses, which are developed within the scope of the study, are tested through panel regression models. Research results show that degree centrality at the enterprise group level positively affects FDI decisions and activities. Another significant finding obtained within the scope of the study shows that there is no effect of betweenness at the enterprise group level on FDI activities.

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türk işletme gruplarının sahip oldukları ağ yapılarının doğrudan yabancı yatırım kararları üzerindeki etkisini incelemektir. Bu doğrultuda işletme grubu düzeyinde ele alınan sosyal ağ yapıları (merkezilik ve arasındalık boyutlarında) örtüşen yönetim kurulları bağlamında değerlendirilmektedir. Çalışmanın kapsamı, kasıtlı örneklem yöntemine göre belirlenen 13 işletme grubundan, bu işletme gruplarına bağlı şirketler olarak faaliyet gösteren 83 bağlı işletmeden oluşmaktadır. Çalışmada öncelikle toplamda 96 işletmenin (13 holding ve 83 bağlı şirket) 1997-2019 yılları arasında elde edilen verileri ile ağ yapıları (merkezilik ve arasındalık dereceleri) ortaya konulmaktadır. Sonrasında da çalışma kapsamında geliştirilen hipotezler, panel regresyon modelleri aracılığıyla test edilmektedir. Çalışmanın bulguları, işletme grubu düzeyinde derece merkeziliğinin işletme gruplarının DYY karar ve faaliyetlerini olumlu yönde etkilediğini ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma kapsamında elde edilen diğer önemli bulgu ise işletme grubu düzeyinde arasındalığın işletme gruplarının DYY faaliyetleri üzerinde herhangi bir etkisinin olmadığını göstermektedir.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

İlhan-nas, T., Duran, Ş. (2022). THE ROLE OF SOCIAL NETWORKS IN FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENTS: THE CASE OF TURKISH BUSINESS GROUPS. Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 13 Sayı: Kongre Özel Sayısı Özel Sayı, 280–304. https://doi.org/10.36543/kauiibfd.2022.ozelsayi13

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (96)

  1. Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(1), 17–40.
  2. Ar, A., & Fıcıcı, A. (2017). The emerging market manufacturing business groups (embgs) and the ınterplay between ınnovation in environmental sustainability, Digitalization, Internationalization and Corporate Governance Structures: The Case of Turkish Holding Companies. Turkish Economic Review, 4(1), 55–65.
  3. Ataay, A. (2012). Türk aile işletme gruplarının uluslararasılaşma deneyimleri. In T. Koçel (Ed.), 5. Aile İşletmeleri Kongresi Kongre Kitabı. İstanbul Kültür Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  4. Baltagi, B. H., & Wu, P. X. (1999). Unequally spaced panel data regressions with AR(1) disturbances. Econometric Theory, 15(6), 814–823. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266466699156020
  5. Barney, J. (1991). Film resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
  6. Barringer, B. R., & Harrison, J. S. (2000). Walking a tightrope: Creating value through interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 26(3), 367–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600302
  7. Bhargava, A., Franzini, L., & Narendranathan, W. (1982). Serial correlation and the fixed effects model. Source: The Review of Economic Studies, 49(4), 533–549.
  8. Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 795–817. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159624
  9. Buğra, A. (2010). Devlet ve iş adamları (7.), İletişim Yayınları.
  10. Buğra, A. (2018). Devlet ve işadamları (11.), İletişim Yayınları.
  11. Burt, R. S. (1992). The social structure of competition. Contemporary Sociology. https://doi.org/10.2307/2075713
  12. Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 339–365.
  13. Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behaviour (Vol. 22). Elsevier Science Inc.
  14. Burt, R. S. (2002). Bridge decay. Social Networks, 24(4), 333–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-8733(02)00017-5
  15. Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ıdeas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399. https://doi.org/10.1086/421787
  16. Burt, R. S. (2007). Secondhand brokerage: Evidence on the importance of local structure for managers, bankers and analysts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 119–148. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.24162082
  17. Chetty, S. K., & Stangl, L. M. (2010). Internationalization and innovation in a network relationship context. European Journal of Marketing, 44(11), 1725–1743. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561011079855
  18. Çolpan, M. A., & Hikino, T. (2008). Türkiye’nin büyük şirketler kesiminde işletme gruplarının iktisadi rolü ve çeşitlendirme stratejileri. Yönetim Araştırmları Dergisi, 8(1–2), 23–58.
  19. Coviello, N. E. (2006). The network dynamics of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(5), 713–731.
  20. De Masi, G., & Ricchiuti, G. (2018). A network analysis of foreign direct ınvestments. Networks of International Trade and Investment, September 2017, 1–20. https://vernonpress.com/book/96
  21. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The ıron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
  22. Erdilek, A. (2003). A comparative analysis of inward and outward FDI in Turkey. Uctad/Ite/Iıt, 12(3), 79–105. https://doi.org/10.3848/iif.2005.233.3044
  23. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7
  24. Frees, E. W. (1995). Assessing cross-sectional correlation in panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 69(2), 393–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01658-M
  25. Frees, E. W. (2004). Longitudinal and panel data: Analysis and applications in the social sciences. In Cambridge University Press. (Vol. 101, Issue 473).
  26. Friedman, M. (1937). The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality ımplicit in the analysis of variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 32(200), 675–701.
  27. Gargiulo, M., & Benassi, M. (1998). Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital. Organization Science, 11(2), 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.2.183.12514
  28. Grandori, A., & Soda, G. (1995). Inter-firm networks: Antecedents, mechanisms and forms. Organization Studies, 16(2), 183–214.
  29. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure:The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 3(3).
  30. Güler, I., & Guillén, M. F. (2010). Home country networks and foreign expansion: Evidence from the venture capital industry. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 390–410. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.49389027
  31. Gummesson, E. (2007). Case study research and network theory: Birds of a feather. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 2(3), 226–248. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465640710835373
  32. Hadjit, A., & Browne, E. M. (2005). Foreign direct investment in Turkey: The implications of EU accession. Turkish Studies, 6(3), 321–340.
  33. Hagedoorn, J. (2006). Understanding the cross-level embeddedness of interfirm partnership formation. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 670–680. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2006.21318924
  34. Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., & Wright, M. (2000). Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 249–267.
  35. Jensen, M. (2008). The use of relational discrimination to manage market entry: When do social status and structual holes work against you? Academy of Management Journal, 51(4), 723–743. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2008.33665259
  36. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (1977). The internationalization process of the fırm-a model of knowledge development and increasıng foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1139/y89- 072
  37. Kenis, P., & Oerlemans, L. (2007). The social network perspective: understanding the structure of cooperation. In The Oxford Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199282944.003.0011
  38. KHU-DEİK-KPMG-VCC. (2011). Turkish MNEs steady on their course despite crisis, survey finds. 1–26.
  39. KHU-DEİK-VCC. (2009). Survey provides the first ever ranking of Turkish multinationals investing abroad. Vcc, 1–14.
  40. KHU-DEİK-VCC. (2014). Turkish OFDI continues to grow. Vcc, 1–34. http://ccsi.columbia.edu/files/2014/03/EMGP-Turkey-Report-March-24-2014.pdf
  41. Kim, H., Kim, H., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2010). Does market-oriented institutional change in an emerging economy make business-group-affiliated multinationals perform better? An institution-based view. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(7), 1141–1160. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.17
  42. Klein, S. (1989). A transaction cost explanation of vertical control in international markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 17(3), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02729817
  43. Koka, B. R., Madhavan, R., & Prescott, J. E. (2006). The evolution of interfirm networks: Environmental effects on patterns of network change. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 721–737. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2006.21318927
  44. Li, H., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2002). The adoption of agency business activity, product innovation, and performance in Chinese technology ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 23(6), 469–490. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.233
  45. Lin, J. Z., Peng, W. M., Yang, H., & Sun, L. S. (2009). How do networks and learning drive m&as?an institutional comparison between China and the United States. Strategic Management Journal, 894(June 2006), 1113–1132. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj
  46. Majkgård, A., & Sharma, D. D. (1998). Client-following and market-seeking strategies in the internationalization of service firms. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 4(3), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1300/J033v04n03_01
  47. Maman, D. (1999). Research Note: Interlocking ties within business groups in Israel — A Longitudinal Analysis. Organization Studies, 20(2), 323–339.
  48. Mizruchi, M. S. (1996). What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 271–298. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.271
  49. Musteen, M., Francis, J., & Datta, D. K. (2010). The influence of international networks on internationalization speed and performance: A study of Czech SMEs. Journal of World Business, 45(3), 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.12.003
  50. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.
  51. O’Malley, A. J., & Marsden, P. V. (2008). The analysis of social networks. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 8(4), 222–269.
  52. Ojala, A. (2009). Internationalization of knowledge-intensive SMEs: The role of network relationships in the entry to a psychically distant market. International Business Review, 18(1), 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2008.10.002
  53. Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: A powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28(6), 441–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555150202800601
  54. Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling the speed of internationalization. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 537–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00097.x
  55. Özkara, B., Kurt, M., & Karayormuk, K. (2008). Türkiye’de ı̇şletme grupları:eski̇ler ve yeni̇ler. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(1), 59–83.
  56. Park, S. H., Li, S., & Tse, D. K. (2006). Market liberalization and firm performance during China’s economic transition. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400178
  57. Peng, M. W. (2003). Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 275–296. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040678
  58. Peng, M. W., Sun, S. L., Pinkham, B., & Chen, H. (2009). The institution-based view as a third leg for a strategy tripod. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2009.43479264
  59. Peng, M. W., Wang, D. Y. L., & Jiang, Y. (2008). An institution-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(5), 920–936. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400377
  60. Pesaran, M. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. In Cambridge working Paper in Economics (Issue 1240).
  61. Podolny, J. M. (1993). A status-based model of market. American Journal of Sociology, 98(4), 829–872.
  62. Prell, C., Hubacek, K., & Reed, M. (2009). Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 22(6), 501–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802199202
  63. Quatman, C., & Chelladurai, P. (2008). Social network theory and analysis: A complementary lens for inquiry. Journal of Sport Management, 22(3), 338–360. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.22.3.338
  64. Sargut, A. S. (2006). Sosyal sermaye: Yapının sunduğu bir olanak mı, yoksa bireyin amaçlı eylemi mi ? Akdeniz Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 12(January), 1–13.
  65. Selekler- Gökşen, N., & Üsdiken, B. (2001). Uniformity and diversity in Turkish business groups: Effects of scale and time of founding. British Journal of Management, 12(4), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00213
  66. Selekler-Gökşen, N., & Karataş, A. (2008). Board structure and performance in an emerging economy: Turkey. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 4(2), 132–147. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBGE.2008.019172
  67. Shi, W., Sun, S. L., Pinkham, B. C., & Peng, M. W. (2014). Domestic alliance network to attract foreign partners: Evidence from international joint ventures in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(3), 338–362. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2013.71
  68. Smallbone, D., & Welter, F. (2001). The distinctiveness of entrepreneurship in transition economies. 249–262.
  69. Soda, G., Usai, A., & Zaheer, A. (2004). Network memory: The influence of past and current networks on performance. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 893–906. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159629
  70. Sözen, C., Basım, N., & Hazır, K. (2009). Social network analysis in organizational studies. International Journal of Business and Management Studies, 1(1), 21–35.
  71. Sözen, C., & Gürbüz, S. (2015). Örgütsel ağlar (H. C. Sözen & N. Basım (eds.). Beta Yayıncılık.
  72. Tatoglu, E., & Glaister, K. W. (1998). Determinants of foreign direct investment in Turkey. Thunderbird International Business Review, 40(June), 279–314.
  73. Tatoğlu, F. Y. (2018). Panel veri ekonometrisi / Stata uygulamalı. Beta Yayıncılık.
  74. Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: a replication of ‘the role of intrafirm networks’ by Wenpin Tsai and Sumantra Ghoshal. The Academy of Management Journal, 41(2), 464–476. https://doi.org/10.11634/216796061706277
  75. Udomkit, N., & Schreier, C. (2017). Tie the ties: The significance of the binding networks in SMEs’ Internationalization process. Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, 18(1), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10599231.2017.1272992
  76. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis in the social and behavioral sciences. Social Network Analysis, May, 275–296.
  77. Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. The Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233–261. https://doi.org/10.1086/466942
  78. Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Hoskisson, R. E., & Peng, M. W. (2005). Strategy research in emerging economies: Challenging the conventional wisdom. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00487.x
  79. Xiao, Z., & Tsui, A. S. (2007). When brokers may not work: The cultural contingency of social capital in Chinese high-tech firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.1.1
  80. Yamin, M., & Kurt, Y. (2018). Revisiting the Uppsala internationalization model: Social network theory and overcoming the liability of outsidership. International Marketing Review, 35(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-11-2014-0345
  81. Yiu, D., Bruton, G. D., & Lu, Y. (2005). Understanding business group performance in an emerging economy: Acquiring resources and capabilities in order to prosper. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1), 183–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00493.x
  82. Zaheer, A., & Soda, G. (2009). Network evolution: Structural holes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 1–31.
  83. Zain, M., & Ng, I. S. (2006). The impacts of network relationships on SMEs’ internationalization process. Thunderbird International Business Review, 48(2), 183–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie
  84. Zhao, Z., Anand, J., & Mitchell, W. (2005). A dual networks perspective on inter-organizational transfer of R&D capabilities: International joint ventures in the Chinese automotive industry. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1), 127–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00491.x
  85. Zhou, L., Wu, W. P., & Luo, X. (2007). Internationalization and the performance of born-global SMEs: The mediating role of social networks. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 673–690. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400282.
  86. Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(1), 17–40.
  87. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The ıron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
  88. Frees, E. W. (2004). Longitudinal and panel data: Analysis and applications in the social sciences. In Cambridge University Press. (Vol. 101, Issue 473).
  89. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure:The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 3(3).
  90. Hadjit, A., & Browne, E. M. (2005). Foreign direct investment in Turkey: The implications of EU accession. Turkish Studies, 6(3), 321–340.
  91. KHU-DEİK-KPMG-VCC. (2011). Turkish MNEs steady on their course despite crisis, survey finds. 1–26.
  92. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.
  93. Özkara, B., Kurt, M., & Karayormuk, K. (2008). Türkiye’de ı̇şletme grupları:eski̇ler ve yeni̇ler. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(1), 59–83.
  94. Pesaran, M. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. In Cambridge working Paper in Economics (Issue 1240).
  95. Sargut, A. S. (2006). Sosyal sermaye: Yapının sunduğu bir olanak mı, yoksa bireyin amaçlı eylemi mi ? Akdeniz Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 12(January), 1–13.
  96. Zaheer, A., & Soda, G. (2009). Network evolution: Structural holes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 1–31.