Тип работы:
 Предмет:
 Язык работы:


IMPACT OF CORPORATE DIVERSIFICATION ON COMPANY PERFORMANCE AND RISK: EVIDENCE FROM RUSSIA

Работа №64775

Тип работы

Бакалаврская работа

Предмет

финансы и кредит

Объем работы86
Год сдачи2016
Стоимость4100 руб.
ПУБЛИКУЕТСЯ ВПЕРВЫЕ
Просмотрено
128
Не подходит работа?

Узнай цену на написание


INTRODUCTION 7
CHAPTER 1. LITERATURE REVIEW 9
1.1. Theoretical background on diversification 9
1.2. Corporate diversification and performance 15
1.3. Corporate diversification and risk 21
1.4. Summary of Chapter 1 25
CHAPTER 2. RESEARCH DESIGN 27
2.1. Diversification definition 27
2.2. Sample description 28
2.3. Methodology 30
2.4. Variables 33
2.5. Summary of Chapter 2 36
CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH FINDINGS 38
3.1. Descriptive statistics 38
3.2. Model findings 40
3.3. Results 45
3.4. Discussion 51
3.5. Summary of Chapter 3 58
CONCLUSION 61
REFERENCES 63


In the modern globalized world with increasing international trade and booming information volumes one of the ways available for companies to stay ahead of the competition is diversification, both product and geographical. Theoretically, there is a lot of benefits that are commonly attributed to diversification (Williamson, 1979), however in practice, it is often the case that diversification becomes a value destroying activity (Porter, 2008). While more and more companies make attempts to diversify, it is important to understand what impact such activities can make on two of the most important matters of any company: performance and risk.
It is usually perceived that corporate diversification opens up new opportunities in terms of performance and therefore it is beneficial for companies. However, since 1970s academicians tried to understand the relationship between diversification strategy and firm performance, and in turns out that there is no one single answer; the evidence is mixed, and there are different views on the relationship (Dey & Banerjee, 2011).
Same goes for diversification and risk: there is a common perception that diversification reduces corporate risk, however the empirical results are mixed as well (Anderson et al., 2011). The motivation of reduction of risk by diversification, highlighted in the literature, contributes largely to explain the choice to integrate the notion of risk in this study.
In general, most papers study the impact of diversification on performance and risk separately, however there is lack of empirical studies on these two issues simultaneously. Moreover, as per our knowledge, very few studies were devoted to conducting such analysis with regards to the emerging markets, let alone Russia. With this paper we aim to fill this gap. Also, most studies are concentrated on cross-section analyses. Differently, this research uses a longitudinal data from a sample composed of large Russian firms, in order to analyze the firm activity perimeter evolution effect on its level of risk and performance in a dynamic prospect.
The research goal of the paper is to determine the relationship between corporate diversification and company performance and risk, using evidence from Russian companies.
In order to achieve the outlined research goal, we define the following objectives:
• To identify the theoretical background on corporate diversification;
• To study existing literature on corporate diversification and performance relationship, and on corporate diversification and risk relationship;
• To propose an empirical methodology of the analysis on the impact of corporate diversification on performance and risk;
• To build and describe a sample for the analysis;
• To conduct an empirical study on the built sample;
• To interpret results and provide managerial implications based on the findings.
This master thesis is an empirical research, in order to achieve the goal of the study we conduct quantitative analysis using econometric tools built in the Stata software.
The main sources of information we use for the purposes of this research are academic articles devoted to: theoretical studies of diversification, motivation to diversify, determinants of diversification premium or discount, the effects of corporate diversification on company performance and risk. In order to gather data for our empirical study we use Thomson Reuters Datastream database and annual reports available on official websites of the companies selected for the study.
In order to achieve the defined goal of the research, we structure this thesis as follows: an introduction, three chapters that cover all objectives of the research and a conclusion. The introduction includes goals and objectives of the research, along with the motivation and background of the study. The first chapter covers the first two objectives as is devoted to analysing the theoretical framework of diversification, and the impact of diversification on performance as risk.
The second chapter corresponds to the third and fourth objectives, as there we describe the empirical research methodology, sample selection and variables calculation. In the third chapter we cover the last two objectives, as we present the results of the econometric analysis and then discuss these findings as well as develop managerial recommendations.
Finally, the conclusion summarizes the results of the research in accordance with the goals set. Also, at the end of each chapter we provide a short summary in order to help a reader better catch the main points discussed in the chapter.


Возникли сложности?

Нужна помощь преподавателя?

Помощь в написании работ!
ДИПЛОМНЫЕ МАГИСТЕРСКИЕ ДИССЕРТАЦИИ
КУРСОВЫЕ СТАТЬИ ВКР

This thesis was devoted to studying corporate diversification and how if affects companies and their businesses. The research goal of the paper was to determine the relationship between corporate diversification and company performance and risk, using evidence from Russian companies. We accomplished this goal, and achieved all of the research objectives stated.
As a first step of the study, we investigated the theoretical framework of diversification and outlined commonly used indicators to measure diversification. We also reviewed the existing literature on diversification performance relationship and diversification risk relationship, which allowed us to make preliminary conclusions and define the hypotheses to be tested. As a second part of the study, we conducted empirical analysis which allowed us to determine the impact of diversification on risk and performance. As we measured company performance and risk by using both accounting and market based indicators, we managed to test our hypotheses separately for these types of measures.
We found that a diversified firm tends perform worse than an undiversified firm in terms of ROA and ROE, due to the higher asset and equity profile and the problem that the returns a company gets do not necessarily match the old undiversified profile, although its absolute return amount might very well be bigger. On the other hand, when analyzing the relationship between total diversification and Tobin’s Q, we found that diversified firms tend to have higher market value rather than undiversified firms; investors see corporate diversification as a productive risk management activity. Also, as per our findings, both related and unrelated diversification yield a decrease in performance. Overall, there can be numerous explanation for the phenomena, and this could potentially be an interesting topic for future research.
As for internationalization, we found that it has a positive effect on an accounting based measure of performance, ROA, and negative effect on a market-based measure of performance, Tobin’s Q. We inferred that when the companies in the sample go international, they are able to increase the returns without a dramatic increase in assets. We also concluded that in more internationalized companies total assets tend to grow faster than the market value.
As for the diversification and risk relationship, we found it to be negative for both accounting and market-based measures. Also, we concluded that Russian companies prefer to finance their diversification efforts with equity rather than debt. Another inference we made is that Russian companies prefer to use equity financing for unrelated diversification activities, and debt financing in a bigger extent for related diversification efforts. As for our results of internationalization-risk analysis, we found a negative relationship. We inferred that internationalization activities get higher earnings for the companies, which then use these increased earnings for debt repayment. All in all, internationalization benefits outweigh the costs for Russian companies.
Based on our findings, we developed a set of managerial implications. Managers should be aware that diversification can cause both positive and negative effects and should keep in mind the importance of developing capabilities and resources in a way that can potentially bring value across new segments in future. Resource and capability management is crucial; if it is not managed properly for diversification, then it is better to not diversify at all. An important implication for decision makers in Russian companies concerns geographical diversification: our findings imply that going international is beneficial for both performance and risk profile of the company. Also, it seems that there is demand for Russian companies’ products abroad, therefore managers should pay more attention to export possibilities. This is especially relevant during the current economic situation.
In order to conduct a thorough analysis, we used 116 references; and the contribution of this study is the coherent investigation of diversification relationship with performance and risk. However, there is clearly a scope for future research: besides of including more markets and industries to the analysis and then comparing the results, what could be valuable is to compare results of diversification via different modes such as M&A, greenfield or joint venture. Also, analyzing how companies could quantify the initial capabilities and resources, and comparing them with regards to diversification could also be a promising topic to study.



1. Agrawal, A., and G. Mandelker. 1987. Managerial incentives and corporate investment and financing decisions. Journal of Finance 42: 823-837.
2. Al-Matari E. M., A. K. Al-Swidi, and F. Fadzil. 2014. The measurements of firm performance’s dimensions. Asian Journal of Finance & Accounting 6 (1): 24-49.
3. Allen, D., and A. Gorgeon. 2002. Diversification Strategy. Madrid, Spain: IE Publishing Department.
4. Amihud, Y., and B. Lev. 1981. Risk reduction as a managerial motive for conglomerate mergers. The Rand Journal of Economics 12: 605-618.
5. Anderson, C. W., M. Fedenia, M. Hirschey, and H. Skiba. 2011. Cultural influences on home bias and international diversification by institutional investors. Journal of Banking & Finance 35 (4): 916-934.
6. Anderson, R. C., T. W. Bates, J. M. Bizjak, and M. L. Lemmon. 2000. Corporate governance and firm diversification. Financial Management 29 (1): 5-22.
7. Anil M. P., and V. Narendar. 1998. Diversification and firm performance: an empirical evaluation. Journal of Financial and Strategic Decisions 11 (2): 67-82.
8. Ball, R., and P. Brown. 1968. An empirical evaluation of accounting income numbers. Journal of Accounting Research 6 (2): 159-178.
9. Barney, J. B. 1997. Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.
10. Barton, S., and P. Gordon. 1988. Corporate strategy and capital structure. Strategic Management Journal, 9: 623-632.
11. Beaver, W., P. Kettler, and M. Scholes. 1970. The association between market-determined and accounting-determined risk measures. The Accounting Review 45 (4): 654-681.
12. Berger, P. G., and E. Ofek, 1999. Causes and effects of corporate refocusing programs. The Review of Financial Studies 12 (2): 311-345.
13. Berger, P. G., and E. Ofek. 1995. Diversification's effect on firm value. Journal of Financial Economics 37 (1): 39-65.
14. Bernardo A. E., and B, Chowdhry. 2002. Resources, real options, and corporate strategy. Journal of Financial Economics 63: 211-234.
15. Bernardo, A., B. Chowdhry, D. Palia, and E. Sernova. 2000. Real Options and the diversification
discount. Working Paper, The Anderson School, University of California in Los Angeles.
16. Berry, C. H. 1971. Corporate growth and diversification. The Journal of Law & Economics 14 (2): 371-383.
17. Borde, S. F., K. Chambliss, and J. Madura. 1994. Explaining variation in risk across insurance companies. Journal of Financial Services Research 8 (3): 177-191.
18. Boz, I., I. Yigit, and I. Anil. 2013. The relationship between diversification strategy and organizational performance: A research intended for comparing Belgium and Turkey. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 99: 997-1006.
19. Bozec, Y., R. Bozec, and M. Dia. 2010. Overall governance, firm value and deviation from one share: One vote principle. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 6(4): 305-328.
20. Campa, J.M., and S. Kedia. 2002. Explaining the diversification discount. Journal of Finance 57 (4): 1731-1762.
21. Carlson, M., A. Fisher, and R. Giammarino. 2006. Corporate investment and asset price dynamics: Implications for SEO event studies and long-run performance. Journal of Finance 61: 1009-1034.
22. Chan, K., and T. Steiner. 2000. An agency analysis of firm diversification: The consequences of discretionary cash and managerial risk considerations. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 14: 247-260.
23. Choe, C., and X. Yin. 2009. Diversification discount, information rents, and internal capital markets, Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 49: 178-196.
24. Comment, R., and G. Jarrell. 1995. Corporate focus and stock returns. Journal of Financial Economics 37: 67-87.
25. Contractor F. J., V. Kumar, and S. K. Kundu. 2007. Nature of the relationship between international expansion and performance: The case of emerging market firms. Journal of World Business 42: 401-417.
26. Denis, D., D. Denis, and A. Sarin. 1997. Agency problems, equity ownership and corporate diversification. Journal of Finance 52: 135-160.
27. Desmond, W.N. 2007. A modern resource based approach to unrelated diversification. Journal of Management Studies 44: 1481-1502.
28. Dey, T., and R. Banerjee. 2011. Can corporate diversification promote firm value? A survey. MPRA Paper, University Library of Munich, Germany.
29. Diestre, L., and J. Santalo. 2013. The related diversification discount: When does related diversification destroy value? Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings 2013 (1): 12298-12298.
30. Doukas, J. A. 2003. Foreign direct investment, diversification and firm performance. Journal of International Business Studies 34: 153-172.
31. Doukas, J., and O. Kan. 2006. Does global diversification destroy firm value? Journal of International Business Studies 37: 352-371.
32. Ecker, F., J. Francis, P. Olsson, and K. Schipper. 2009. A comparison of market-based and accounting-based descriptions of business risk. Working Paper, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University.
33. Elsas, R., A. Hackethal, and M. Holzhauser. 2010. The anatomy of bank diversification. Journal of Banking & Finance 34 (6): 1274-1287.
34. Fama, E., and K. French. 1992. The Cross-Section of expected stock returns. The Journal of Finance 47: 427-465.
35. Farjoun, M. 1994. Beyond industry boundaries: Human expertise, diversification, and resource related industry groups. Organization Science 5 (2): 185-199.
36. Fatemi A. M. 1984. Shareholder benefits from corporate international diversification. Journal of Finance 39: 1325-1344.
37. Fayerweather, J. 1978. International business strategy and administration. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co.
38. Fleming, G., B. Oliver and S. Skourakis. 2003. The valuation discount of multi-segment firms in Australia. Accounting and Finance, 43, 167-185.
39. Ghemawat, P., and T. Khanna. 1998. The nature of diversified business groups: A research design and two case studies. Journal of Industrial Economics 46 (1): 35-61.
40. Goldberg, S., and F. Heflin. 1995. The association between the level of international operations and risk. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting 6 (1): 1-25.
41. Gomes, J., and D. Livdan. 2004, Optimal diversification: Reconciling theory and evidence. The Journal of Finance 59: 507-535.
42. Gorecki, P. K. 1974. The measurement of enterprise diversification. Review of Economics and Statistics 56: 399-401.
43. Grant R. M., A. P. Jammine, and H. Thomas. 1988. Diversity, diversification, and profitability among British manufacturing companies, 1972-1984. The Academy of Management Journal 31 (4): 771-801.
44. Greene, W. 2008. Econometric Analysis. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
45. Guillen, M. F. 2000. Business groups in emerging economies: A resource-based view. Academy of Management Journal 43 (3): 362-380.
46. Harris M., C. Kriebel, and A. Raviv. 1982. Asymmetric Information, Incentives and Intrafirm Resource Allocation. Management Science 28 (6): 604-620.
47. He, X. 2009. Corporate diversification and firm value: Evidence from post-1997 data. International Review of Finance 9 (4): 359-385.
48. Hermalin, B., and M. Katz. 2003. Corporate diversification and agency costs. Working Paper, University of California at Berkeley.
49. Hitt, M. A., R. E. Hoskisson, and H. Kim. 1997. International diversification: effects of innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal 40: 767-798.
50. Hsiao, C. 2005. Why Panel Data? Singapore Economic Review 50 (2): 1-12.
51. Jacquemin, A. P., and C. Berry. 1979. Entropy measure of diversification and corporate growth. Journal of Industrial Economics 27 (4): 359-69.
52. Jensen, M. C. 1986. Agency cost of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. American Economic Review 76 (2): 323-329.
53. Jensen, M., and K. Murphy. 1990. Performance pay and top-management incentives. The Journal of Political Economy 98 (2): 225-264.
54. Johnson, G., and K. Scholes. 2002. Exploring Corporate Strategy: Text and Cases. New York, NY: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
55. Kakani, R.K. 2000. Financial performance and diversification strategy of Indian business groups. PhD diss, Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta.
56. Kapopoulos, P., and S. Lazaretou. 2007. Corporate ownership structure and firm performance: evidence from Greek firms. Corporate Governance 15 (2): 144-159.
57. Khanna, T., and K. Palepu. 1997. Why focused strategies would be wrong for emerging markets. Harvard Business Review 75: 41-54.
58. Khanna, T., and K. Palepu. 2000. Is group affiliation profitable in emerging markets? An analysis of diversified Indian business groups. The Journal of Finance 55 (2): 867-891.
59. Klapper, L., and I. Love. 2002. Corporate governance, investor protection, and performance in emerging markets. Working Paper, World Bank.
60. Kochhar R., and M. Hitt. 1998. Linking corporate strategy to capital structure: diversification
strategy, type and source of financing. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 601-610.
61. Kock C., and M. F. Guillen. 2001. Strategy and structure in developing countries: Business groups as an evolutionary response to opportunities for unrelated diversification. Industrial and Corporate Change 10 (1): 77-113.
62. Kogut, B. 1989. Research notes and communications: A note on global strategies. Strategic Management Journal 10: 383-389.
63. Konchitchki, Y., Y. Luo, M. Ma, and F. Wu. 2016. Accounting-based downside risk, cost of capital, and the macroeconomy. Review of Accounting Studies 21 (1): 1-36.
64. Kwok, C., and D. Reeb. 2000. Internationalization and firm risk: An upstream-downstream hypothesis. Journal of International Business Studies 31: 611-629.
65. La Rocca, M., T. La Rocca, D. Gerace, and C. Smark. 2009. Effect of diversification on capital structure. Accounting & Finance 49: 799-826.
66. Lamont, O., and C. Polk. 2002. Does diversification destroy value? Evidence from the industry shocks. Journal of Financial Economics 63 (1): 51-77.
67. Lang L., and R. Stulz. 1994. Tobin’s q, corporate diversification, and firm performance. Journal of Political Economy 102 (6): 1248-1280.
68. Lessard, D. 1976. World, country, and industry relationships in equity returns: Implications for risk reduction through international diversification. Financial Analysts Journal 32 (1): 32-38.
69. Lev, B. 1974. On the association between operating leverage and risk. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 9 (4): 627-641.
70. Li, X. 2004. Diversification and firm performance - the case of China. Chinese Business Review 3 (5): 1-8.
71. Lins, K. V. and H. Servaes. 2002. Is corporate diversification beneficial in emerging markets? Financial Management 31 (2): 5-31.
72. Lins, K., and H. Servaes. 1999. International evidence on the value of corporate diversification, The Journal of Finance 54 (6): 2215-2239.
73. Low, P. Y., and K. H. Chen. 2004. Diversification and capital structure: Some international evidence. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 23 (1): 55-71.
74. Lu, J., and P. Beamish. 2004. International diversification and firm performance: The S-curve hypothesis. The Academy of Management Journal 47 (4): 598-609.
75. Lubatkin, M., and S. Chatterjee. 1994. Extending modern portfolio theory into the domain of corporate diversification: Does it apply? Academy of Management Journal 37: 109-136.
76. Madura J., and L. Rose. 1989. Impact of international sales degree and diversity on corporate risk. The International Trade Journal 3: 261-276.
77. Maksimovic V., and G. M. Phillips. 2007. Conglomerate firms and internal capital markets. In Handbook of Corporate Finance, ed. B. Espen Eckbo, 423-477. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
78. Mansi, S. A., and D. M. Reeb. 2002. Corporate diversification: What gets discounted? The Journal of Finance 57 (5): 2167-2183.
79. Markides, X. C., and P. J. Williamson. 1994. Related diversification, core competences and corporate performance. Strategic Management Journal 15: 149-165.
80. Martin, J. D., and A. Sayrak. 2003. Corporate diversification and shareholder value: A survey of recent literature, Journal of Corporate Finance 9 (1): 37-57.
81. Meyer, M., P. Milgrom, and J. Roberts. 1992. Organizational prospects, influence costs and ownership changes. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 1: 9-35.
82. Miller, D. J. 2006. Technological diversity, related diversification and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27: 601-619.
83. Montgomery, C. 1985. Product-market diversification and market power. Academy of Management Journal 28 (4): 789-798
84. Montgomery, C., and H. Singh. 1984. Diversification strategy and systematic risk. Strategic Management Journal 5: 181-191.
85. Morck, R., D. Stangeland, and B. Yeung. 1998. Inherited wealth, corporate control, and economic growth: The Canadian disease? NBER Working Paper 6814, National Bureau of Economics Research.
86. Nayyar, P. R. 1992. On the measurement of corporate diversification strategy: Evidence from large U.S. service firms. Strategic Management Journal 13: 219-235.
87. Palepu, K. 1985. Diversification strategy, profit performance and the entropy measure. Strategic Management Journal 6: 239-255.
88. Palich, L. E., L. B. Cardinal, and C. C. Miller. 2000. Curvilinearity in the diversification¬performance linkage: An examination of over three decades. Strategic Management Journal 21: 155-174.
89. Park, H. M. 2011. Practical guides to panel data modeling: A step-by-step analysis using Stata. Working Paper, Graduate School of International Relations, International University of Japan.
90. Piscitello, L. 2004. Corporate diversification, coherence and economic performance. Industrial and Corporate Change 13: 757-787.
91. Porter, M. 2008. On Competition. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
92. Rajan R., and L. Zingales. 1995. What do we know about capital structure? Some evidence from international data. Journal of Finance 50: 1421-1460.
93. Rajan, R., H. Servaes, and L. Zingales. 2000. The cost of diversity: The diversification discount and inefficient investment. Journal of Finance 55: 35-80.
94. Rieck, O., J. Cheah, A. Lau, and S. Lee. 2004. The Relationship between degree of internationalization and firm performance in the telecommunications industry. Paper presented at the ITS Europe 16th European regional conference proceedings, Porto, Portugal.
95. Rumelt, R. P. 1982. Diversification strategy and profitability. Strategic Management Journal 3: 359-369.
96. Schmid, M., and W. Ingo. 2009. Do financial conglomerates create or destroy economic value? Journal of Financial Intermediation 18 (2): 193-216.
97. Schoar, A. 2002. Effects of corporate diversification on productivity. The Journal of Finance 57: 2379-2403.
98. Servaes, H. 1996. The value of diversification during the conglomerate merger wave. The Journal of Finance 51 (4): 1201-1225.
99. Shcherbakov D. 2012. Povyshaet li mezhdunarodnaya diversifikatsiya biznesa operatsionnuyu effektivnost'? Opyt rossiyskikh kompaniy [Does corporate internationalization contribute to companies’ operational efficiency? Evidence form Russian companies] Journal of Corporate Finance, 4 (24): 58-64.
100. Shleifer, A., and R. W. Vishny. 1992. Liquidation values and debt capacity: A market equilibrium approach. Journal of Finance 47 (4): 1343-1366.
101. Singh, N. P., R. Kumar, and R.P. Singh. 2006. Diversification of Indian agriculture: Composition, determinants and trade implications. Agricultural Economics Research Review 19: 23-36.
102. Stein, J. C. 1997. Internal capital markets and the competition for corporate resources. Journal of Finance 52 (1): 111-133.
103. Stein, J. C. 2003. Agency, information and corporate investment. In Handbook of the Economics of Finance (vol. 1A), eds. G. M. Constantinides, M. Harris, and R. M. Stulz, 111-165. Amsterdam: Elsevier NH.
104. Stijn, C., S. Djankov, J. P. Fan, and L. Lang. 2002. When does corporate diversification matter to productivity and performance? Evidence from East Asia. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 11
(3): 365-392.
105. Tallman, S., and J. Li. 1996. Effects of international diversity and product diversity on the performance of multinational firms. Academy of Management Journal 39: 179-196.
106. Teece, D. J. 1980. Economies of scope and the scope of the enterprise. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 1: 223-247.
107. Thomas, S. 2002. Firm diversification and asymmetric information: Evidence from analyst forecasts and earnings announcements. Journal of Financial Economics 64: 373-396.
108. Toms S. 2011. Accounting, regulation and profitability: The case of PFI hospital refinancing. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 22 (7): 668-681.
109. Villalonga, B. 2001. Does diversification cause the ‘diversification discount’? Working Paper, Harvard University.
110. Villalonga, B. 2004. Diversification discount or premium? New evidence from the business information tracking series. The Journal of Finance 59 (2): 479-506.
111. Wahla, K., S. Shah, and Z. Hussain. 2012. Impact of ownership structure on firm performance evidence from non-financial listed companies at Karachi Stock Exchange. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics 84: 6-13.
112. Wan, W. P., R. E. Hoskisson, J. C. Short, and D. W. Yiu. 2011. Resource-based theory and corporate diversification: accomplishments and opportunities. Journal of Management 37: 1335-1368.
113. Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 5: 171¬180.
114. Williamson, O. 1979. Transaction-cost economics: the governance of contractual relations. Journal of Law and Economics 22 (2): 233-261.
115. Wooldridge, J. 2012. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. 5th ed. South-Western Cengage Learning.
116. Zhang, W., F. Yuan, and Y. Chen. 2002. An empirical study on the relationship between diversification and economic performance of listed corporations of China. Journal of Chongqing University 25 (11).

Работу высылаем на протяжении 30 минут после оплаты.



Подобные работы


©2025 Cервис помощи студентам в выполнении работ
.