Ownership Advantages in Cross-border Real Estate Development: Some Evidence from European Markets

Drawing upon European industry and country case studies, this paper investigates the scope and drivers of cross-border real estate development. It is argued that the real estate development process encompasses a diverse range of activities and actors. It is inherently localised, the production process is complex and emphermal, and the outputs are heterogeneous. It analyses a transactions database of European real estate markets to provide insights into the extent of, and variations in, market penetration by non-domestic real estate developers. The data were consistent with the expectation that non-domestic real estate developers from mature markets would have a high level of market penetration in immature markets. Compared to western European markets, the CEE real estate office sales by developers were dominated by US, Israeli and other EU developers. This pattern is consistent with the argument that non-domestic developers have substantial Dunning-type ownership advantages when entering immature real estate markets. However, the data also suggested some unexpected patterns. Relative to their GDP, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands and Israel accounted for large proportions of sales by developers. All are EU countries (except Israel) with small, open, affluent, highly traded economies. Further, the data also indicate that there may be a threshold where locational disadvantages outweigh ownership advantages and deter cross-border real estate development.

The effects of cross-border and cross-industry mergers and acquisitions on home-region and global multinational enterprises

We examine the effects of international and product diversification through mergers and acquisitions (M&As) on the firm's risk–return profile. We identify the rewards from different types of M&As and investigate whether becoming a global firm is a value-enhancing strategy. Drawing on the theoretical work of Vachani (Journal of International Business Studies, 22 (1991), pp. 307−222) and on Rugman and Verbeke's (Journal of International Business Studies, 35 (2004), pp. 3−18) metrics, we classify firms according to their degree of international and product diversification. To account for the endogeneity of M&As, we develop a panel vector autoregression. We find that global and host-region multinational enterprises benefit from cross-border M&As that reinforce their geographical footprint. Cross-industry M&As enhance the risk–return profile of home-region firms. This effect depends on the degree of product diversification. Hence there is no value-enhancing M&A strategy for home-region and bi-regional firms to become ‘truly global’.