| In the section | Articles |
| Title of the article | Assesing the Effectiveness of Joint Companies in Russia: Industry-Specific Features |
| Pages | 47-63 |
| Author 1 | Elena Anatolyevna Fedorova Doctor of Economics, Professor Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Financial Management Department 49 Leningradskiy prospekt, Moscow, Russia, 125468 This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. |
| Author 2 | Bella Kemalovna Korkmazova Student of the Master Program. Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Financial Management Department 49 Leningradskiy prospekt, Moscow, Russia, 125468 This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. |
| Author 3 | Maxim Alexandrovich Muratov Student of the Master Program. Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Financial Management Department 49 Leningradskiy prospekt, Moscow, Russia, 125468 This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. |
| Abstract | The paper evaluates the effectiveness of joint and domestic companies using ROA (operational efficiency) and DEA (technical efficiency) methodologies. The technical efficiency was estimated in two ways: according to the classical scheme and taking into account spillover effects. The study was based on statements of Russian companies (23 567 joint enterprises and 14 653 companies without FDI) for the period of 2008-2012. The authors used RusLana resource to get following information: balance sheets, profit and loss statements, capital structure, number of employees and regional affiliation. The study found that joint companies usually operate more effectively than domestic ones. The authors also conclude that the crisis has not caused severe damages to the average effectiveness by industries. More than that, Russian economy has positive horizontal and vertical FDI spillover effects which increase as time goes by. In 2012 the most efficient joint companies (in terms of technical efficiency) belonged to the following industries: coke and petroleum production, chemical industry and metallurgy. The most ineffective ones included following: wholesale and retail trade, machinery and equipment production and agriculture. |
| Code | 332.1 |
| DOI | 10.14530/se.2015.2.047-063 |
| Keywords | foreign direct investment ♦ industry ♦ operational efficiency ♦ technical efficiency ♦ data envelopment analysis ♦ spillover effect ♦ Russia |
| Download | SE.2015.2.047-063.Fedorova.pdf |
| For citation | Fedorova E.A., Korkmazova B.K., Muratov M.A. Assesing the Effectiveness of Joint Companies in Russia: Industry-Specific Features. Prostranstvennaya Ekonomika = Spatial Economics, 2015, no. 2, pp. 47-63. DOI: 10.14530/se.2015.2.047-063. (In Russian). |
| References | 1. Kadochnikov S.M., Drapkin I.M., Davidson N.B., Fedyunina A.A. Effectiveness of National Companies and Economic Diversification in Regions as Factors of Foreign Direct Investment Spillovers in the Russian Economy. Rossiyskiy Zhurnal Menedzhmenta – Russian Management Journal, 2011, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 3–26. (In Russian). 2. Khazanovich E.S. Foreign Investments: Educational Manual. Moscow, 2009, 320 p. (In Russian). 3. Aitken B., Harrison A. Do Domestic Firms Benefit from Direct Foreign Investment? Evidence from Venezuela. American Economic Review, 1999, vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 605–618. DOI: 10.1257/aer.89.3.605 4. Aitken B., Harrison A., Lipsey R. Wages and Foreign Ownership: A Comparative Study of Mexico, Venezuela, and the United States. Journal of International Economics, 1996, vol. 40, no. 3–4, pp. 345–371. DOI: 10.1016/0022-1996(95)01410-1 5. Banker R. D., Charnes A., Cooper W.W. Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis. Management Science, 1984, vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 1078–1092. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.30.9.1078 6. Buckley P.J., Clegg J., Wang C. Is the Relationship Between Inward FDI and Spillover Effects Linear? An Empirical Examination of the case of China. Journal of International Business Studies, 2007, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 447–459. DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400274 7. Charnes A., Cooper W.W., Rhodes E. Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units. European Journal of Operational Research, 1978, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 429–444. DOI: 10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8 8. Doytch N., Eren M. Institutional Determinants of Sectoral FDI in Eastern European and Central Asian Countries: The Role of Investment Climate and Democracy. Emerging Markets Finance & Trade, 2012, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 14–32. DOI: 10.2753/REE1540-496X4806S402 9. Frydman R., Gray C., Hessel M., Rapaczynski A. When Does Privatization Work? The Impact of Private Ownership on Corporate Performance in the Transition Economies. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1999, vol. 114, no. 4, pp. 1153–1191. DOI: 10.1162/003355399556241 10. Gorg H., Strobl E. Multinational Companies and Productivity Spillovers: A Meta-Analysis. The Economic Journal, 2001, vol. 111, no. 475, pp. 723–739. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0297.00669 11. Kornecki L., Ekanayake E.M. State Based Determinants of Inward FDI Flowin the US Economy. Modern Economy, 2012, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 302–309. DOI: 10.4236/me.2012.33040 12. Lin P., Liu Z., Zhang Y. Do Chinese Domestic Firms Benefit from FDI Inflow? Evidence of Horizontal and Vertical Spillovers. China Economic Review, 2009, vol. 20, pp. 677–691. DOI: 10.1016/j.chieco.2009.05.010 13. Lipsey R., Sjoholm F. Host Country Impacts of Inward FDI: Why Such Different Answers? Working Paper No. 192, 2004, 34 p. Available at: (accessed 10 March 2015). 14. Liu K., Daly K., Varua M.E. Determinants of Regional Distribution of FDI Inflows across China’s Four Regions. International Business Research, 2012, vol. 5, no. 12, pp 119–126. DOI: 10.5539/ibr.v5n12p119 15. Nakamura H.R., Olsson M., Lonnborg M. FDI in the Post-EU Accession Baltic Sea Region: A Global or a Regional Concern? Baltic Journal of Economics, 2012, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 89–108. DOI: 10.1080/1406099X.2012.10840519 16. Popovici O.C., Calin A.C. Attractiveness of Public Policies for FDI in Central and Eastern European Countries. Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Sciences, 2012, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 61–67. 17. Singh R., Chaturvedi H., Kasidi F. Behavioral Pattern of FDI Inflows: Autoregressive Study. International Business Research, 2012, vol. 5, no. 10, pp. 201–211. DOI: 10.5539/ibr.v5n10p201 18. Springis M. The Impact of the Host Country Corruption on Inward FDI. Chinese Business Review, 2012, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 144–152. 19. Stancik J. Horizontal and Vertical FDI Spillovers: Recent Evidence from the Czech Republic. CERGE-EI. Working Paper No. 340, 2004, 39 p. 20. Wang C., Zhao Z. Horizontal and Vertical Spillover Effects of Foreign Direct Investment in Chinese Manufacturing. Journal of Chinese Economic and Foreign Trade Studies, 2008, vol. 1, no.1, pp. 8–20. DOI: 10.1108/17544400810854469 21. Wang Z.Q., Swain N.J. The Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment in Transforming Economies: Empirical Evidence from Hungary and China. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 1995, vol. 131, no. 2, pp. 359–382. DOI: 10.1007/BF02707440 22. Wang C., Yu L., Zhong C. Heterogeneity of Firms and Spillovers: The Case of Foreign Direct Investment in Chinese Industry. Journal of Asian Business, 2005, vol. 21 (2), pp. 29–44. 23. Xu X., Wang Y. Ownership Structure, Corporate Governance, and Firms’ Performance: The Case of Chinese Stock Companies. The Policy Research Working Paper, 1999, 60 p. DOI: 10.1596/1813-9450-1794 24. Yudaeva K., Kozlov K., Malentieva N., Ponomareva N. Does Foreign Ownership Matter? The Russian Experience. Economics of Transition, 2003, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 383–409. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0351.00157 |
| Financing | |
| Date |